[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted for ReviewbySCOTUS
- To: John Zulauf <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted for ReviewbySCOTUS
- From: Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:47:18 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- In-reply-to: <3C73D472.13093848@ia.nsc.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, John Zulauf wrote:
>
> The copyright clause is about promoting progress, not maximizing
> return. Having a variable term for works copyrights will only lead to
Isn't 'progress' usually considered fulfilled when you maximize the
economic output from a work. When the most money is made on a work? In
that case, as per Posner and Ladner (I believe), it may be that that is
true with these obscenely restrictive laws.
Or, if you define progress as maximizing the number of works in the public
domain, in, say, 30 years.. Then no.
Scott