Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

["someone somewhere" <chaos755(at)hotmail.com>]

>From: "Steve Hosgood" <steve@caederus.com>
>Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:55:23 
>+0100

> > >
> > >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).

I think that's what I said (or at least implied), if they wanted life of the 
author they would have ditched the limited times, since limited times is in 
there, that means that it needs to be shorter than the author's life.

>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!

oh well...

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.