[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: Ernest Miller <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 06:43:34 -0400
- References: <F98h6PkdlKOzaxkMlOt0000824f@hotmail.com> <3CF448E1.8AC4FA8F@swbell.net>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0rc3) Gecko/20020523
I think we should move away from "lifetime of the author" to some fixed
term (preferably much shorter than present).
> 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 else.
> 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...