[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus



> >From: Jolley <tjolley@swbell.net>
> >Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> >Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:20:01 -0500
> >
> >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.
> >
> If an author's lifetime would be the upper limit, then there's not much 
> point to having 'limited times' in there. Then they could have just said : 
> ...by securing to Authors...
> 

No, no! That's the whole point isn't it? By stating "limited times to authors",
the constitution automatically implies that the "limited time" must be less
than the lifespan of the author (or possibly less than the *expected* lifetime
of the author).

It would be a bit counterproductive if the constitution set up a system
whereby it was worth assassinating authors just to get their works into the
public domain quicker!

--

Steve Hosgood                               |
steve@caederus.com                          | "A good plan today is better
Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve      |   than a perfect plan tomorrow"
Fax:   +44 70922 70944                      |              - Conrad Brean
--------------------------------------------+
        http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve         |  ( from the film "Wag the Dog" )