The position of the anti-SOPA activists is antithetical to the principle of protection — for authors, that is — mandated in the Constitution of the United States. Our nation’s founders recognized that furthering the rights of creators is in the national interest, to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by “securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Over the centuries, copyright protection has been codified in an expanding body of federal law in an attempt to implement the protection outlined in the Constitution.

The SOPA debate is emblematic of the growing tension between the copyright creator — the authors, composers, lyricists and artists who have contributed so much to the socio-economic fabric of American life — and the “interests” of the public in having free access to the works of others. However, the creator/public dichotomy is a false paradigm. What is truly at stake are the competing interests of the creators and the corporations who have acquired and are exploiting their works.

It is the rare creator who has the luxury to create simply for the sake of creating. As history has shown (every Renaissance artist worth his canvas had a patron), in order for creators to enjoy the benefits of their creations, it is necessary for them to cross over into the world of commerce, and to seek the patronage of publishers, record labels, and film and television producers. Sadly, the relationship between creator and corporate sponsor is seldom equal, as evidenced by the scores of documents executed by authors, songwriters and other creators, granting the rights in their works to corporate entities in perpetuity, often in exchange for modest compensation.

Congress attempted to include in the Copyright Act a series of provisions to give the creator (or the heirs of a deceased creator) the opportunity to terminate even perpetual grants of copyright, and “recapture” rights to their works in the U.S. These provisions, known as the “termination provisions,” were first introduced as part of the Copyright Act of 1976, and later modified as part of the Sonny Bono Copyright Act of 1998.

The intent of Congress in enacting the termination provisions was clear: To give creators, or their heirs, the opportunity to escape inequitable deals, or simply to revise the terms of their deals in order to share proportionately in the success of their creations. And, indeed, the opportunity to recapture rights is a potentially valuable asset for creators and their statutory successors. Yet, outside the music industry, the termination right is significantly underutilized, while even songwriters and recording artists are often thwarted in their attempts to recapture rights in a process made unduly complicated in response to pressure from corporate lobbyists.

Like the termination provisions, the real value of SOPA and other copyright enforcement legislation is its role in safeguarding the interests of the intended beneficiaries of copyright protection. Whether or not SOPA is the most effective means of curbing piracy in the online arena is a matter that should be thoroughly examined. However, the SOPA debate should not be commandeered as a vehicle for furthering the position of those who seek to write authors out of the copyright law and the Constitution.

Lisa A. Alter is a partner in the firm of Alter & Kendrick, LLP, in New York City. Her practice is focused primarily in the area of copyright law, with a particular emphasis on domestic and international music copyright issues. Ms. Alter has lectured frequently at law schools and professional meetings on copyright matters, and has represented clients on legislative matters impacting their copyright interests. She is the author of “Protecting Your Musical Copyrights,” which has recently been released in its second edition.

“Psystar…has built its business on infringing Apple’s copyrights and trademarks, free-riding on Apple’s research and development efforts, and trading on Apple’s hard-earned reputation for high quality, innovative and easy-to-use computers,” Apple said in its motion.

“Psystar’s appropriation of Apple’s intellectual property and goodwill has been systematic and brazen, from the name of Psystar’s ‘OpenMac’ computers to its deliberate pirating of Apple’s Mac OS X,” the company added.

“Psystar even seeks to profit from Apple’s efforts to protect its rights, extolling this litigation as Psystar’s ‘opportunity to gain market share,’ in a pitch to venture capitalists….Unless Psystar is permanently enjoined, it will not stop its unlawful conduct–conduct that is causing irreparable harm to Apple’s business, brand and goodwill.”

Catch that? Psystar was pitching VCs on its plan to use Apple’s IP to “compete directly against Apple.” Shameless. Little wonder Cupertino is so intent on burying the would-be rival.

And make no mistake, Apple legal is going to grind Psystar into fine silicon dust. In addition to the injunction, Apple is requesting compensation for legal costs and statutory damages owed under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And according to Apple’s expert witness, statutory damages for the former should run “between $1500 and $300,000″ and for the latter “between $449,500 and $4,495,000.”

Suffice it to say, that’s quite a bit more than the current value of Psystar’s assets which, according to its bankruptcy filing, are no more than $50,000.

“Psystar has violated Apple’s exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works,” Alsup wrote in his ruling (see full text below). Not only did the company infringe on Apple’s (AAPL) copyrights by installing Mac OS X on its hackintoshes, he explained, it violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to do so.

An ugly defeat for Psystar, which just a few weeks ago asked a judge to bless its business and rule that it is legally allowed to sell machines with Apple’s Mac OS X pre-installed. Still, it doesn’t mean that the acrimonious legal battle between the two companies is finished. Psystar could appeal, though Alsup’s ruling would seem to leave the company pretty far up that certain creek it’s been traveling lately–without a paddle.

There remain a number of accusations to be decided at trial, among them, Apple’s claims of breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition. Beyond these, there are the damages that will almost certainly be brought against Psystar on the copyright issues in the case.

“The court asked for briefs on that subject,” Pamela Jones notes over at Groklaw. “In short, Psystar is toast. Psystar’s only hope now is Florida, and frankly I wouldn’t bet the house on that one. Judges notice if you were just found guilty of a similar cause of action in another state.”

Psystar –

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks unspecified, triple damages and, more importantly, an order voiding Apple’s end-user license agreements (EULA). If successful, it will allow OS X to be installed on hardware it was never intended to run on, opening the door for the first legitimate Mac clones in more than a decade. Hard to see Apple (AAPL) allowing that to happen, though. My guess is the company would sooner kill retail sales of OS X and manage upgrades through iTunes, than allow it to be run on inferior machines over whose quality it has no control.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks unspecified, triple damages and, more importantly, an order voiding Apple’s end-user license agreements (EULA). If successful, it will allow OS X to be installed on hardware it was never intended to run on, opening the door for the first legitimate Mac clones in more than a decade. Hard to see Apple (AAPL) allowing that to happen, though. My guess is the company would sooner kill retail sales of OS X and manage upgrades through iTunes, than allow it to be run on inferior machines over whose quality it has no control.