Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

["D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 03:48, someone somewhere wrote:
> >From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
> >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 14:05:25 -0700
> >
> >Somwhere between 28 and
> >50 yrs seems to be a good one.
> >
> I disagree, one of the arguments in eldred is that congress is not allowed 
> to set lenghty terms if that is only good for some categories of works,  
> Most works don't need 28-50 years...

There's a lot of precedent for leaving the details to Congress
as long as they don't go outside of some very fuzzy lines that
the Court applies only in case of egregious violation.

If the Court smacks down the 95-year (or 120+ for individuals)
present term, Congress has to go back and debate the matter.
Getting smacked down again for 90 years will be a Bad Idea,
since (a) it's likely that the end of that road would be shorter
than what the Court would go for if Congress just set it to
a halfway-reasonable 50 or whatever, and (b) every trip
through the Hallowed Halls of Congress makes more press on
how Disney is buying (Congress to get) Winnie the Pooh.

-- 
| May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
|  the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the   |
|    cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way.     |
+------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -----------+