[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
- From: Jolley <tjolley(at)swbell.net>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:20:01 -0500
- Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services
- References: <F98h6PkdlKOzaxkMlOt0000824f@hotmail.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
The answer for an upper limit could be in the constitution.
...by securing for limited Times to Authors...
Anything granted beyond an author's lifetime is being granted to
someone somewhere wrote:
> I don't think that the court will give a precise answer to what 'limited
> times' are, since no one seems to have given them any detailed information
> as to how they would decide that. Plaintiffs only say, that constant
> extending isn't limited any more, but they, nor amici say that eg. 28 or 5
> or 10 years is limited and why eg. life expectancy, speed of distribution,
> ... . Even the economists amici, altough they say that long terms are
> economically not right, don't say what a proper term could be. Since
> nothing specific has been offered, I don't think the court will just figure
> out something by itself. I think a chance has been missed here...