Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Transcript Online

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

The CTEA did not. It only extended the term. The removal of works was in 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act  and NAFTA.

See Golan v Ashcropt

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/golanvashcroft/complaint.pdf

Plaintiffs, through their undersigned counsel, bring this action seeking 
declaratory
relief that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, Pub. L. 
No. 105-298
("CTEA"), which amended and is codified in relevant parts at 17 U.S.C. §§ 
301-304, and
Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("URAA"), Pub. L. No. 
103-465,
which amended and is codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 104A, 109(a), are 
unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs also seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against 
the enforcement
of both provisions.




Jeremy Erwin <jerwin@ponymail.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/18/2002 12:03 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Transcript Online


I seem to recall, somewhat dimly,that the CTEA actually did remove some 
works form the public domain. Is this correct?

"
JUSTICE SOUTER: Why wouldn't it? If the equity argument under the 
Necessary and Proper Clause justifies extension of the copyright for 
those whose copyright will expire tomorrow if it's not extended, in 
order to put them on parity with those getting copyrights for new 
works, why doesn't it apply to the copyright, the holder of the 
copyright that expired yesterday?

GENERAL OLSON: You could arguably [*42] -- you could conceivably make 
that argument, Justice Souter, but there is a bright line there. 
Something that has already gone into the public domain, which other 
individuals or companies or entities may then have acquired an interest 
in, or rights to, or be involved in disseminating --
"

Jeremy