Nesson and Zittrain said they plan to challengethe constitutionality of CTEA on two grounds.

First, they said, Congress is limited in itspower to grant copyright protection.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to giveout copyrights in order to provide an incentivefor creativity, Nesson said.

"The idea of extending existing copyrights to ageneration of producers who are dead isfar-fetched," he added.

The second objection posed by the Eldritch teamstems from CTEA's alleged violation of the "publictrust doctrine."

Zittrain explained that the public trustclause--a "pretty obscure" constitutionalprovision--denies the government the right to giveaway property belonging in common to the people.

Though there is no official Universityconnection to the case, the Harvard lawyersmounting the CTEA challenge emphasized itsrelevance to students and scholars.

"There is a critical education interestinvolved here," Lessig said.

Books that would otherwise be included inEldritch's on-line archives are not posted becausethey remain under copyright protection, Lessigsaid. As an example, he noted the dearth of modernShakespearean criticism at the Eldritch site.

In defense of CTEA, Cullen expressed hisconcern that the U.S. would face a conflict withits trade partners if the government failed toextend copyright terms.

"We are in a delicate position because theEuropean Union has established very strict[copyright] protections," Cullen said.

At home in the U.S., however, Zittrain said hethinks people should tune in to the intellectualproperty debate.

The American public has thus far displayed arelative lack of interest in CTEA and its effecton Internet publishers like Eldritch, according toZittrain.

"If somebody who had the cure for AIDS refusedto share it and was protected under patent law,people would be a lot more up in arms," he said.

The Justice Department has 60 days to respondto the filing of the suit