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

Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus



To begin, the current USSC doesn't seem to mind to step on congress's toes. 
However congress also doesn't seem to mind to taking bribes.  I don't think 
that congress will do anything if the CTEA gets struck down, unless the 
court hints that the maximum limit is something like 10 years, on which the 
mpaa will lobby congress to set a new limit to 20 years, because I don't 
think that the court will be interested in a 10 year difference.  I do think 
that if we get a new round of lawsuits, which pose the question if 50 years 
or so is too long for software, the court will again take the case.  You 
shouldn't forget that the USSC is politisized, however they do like to 
pretend that they follow an ideology, in this case they can actually follow 
the constitution without having any bad consequences (like letting loose 
murderers because the police screwed up)

>
>That's a good point. The USSC will need to give congress some serious hints
>about what's reasonable times.
>
>On 29 May 2002 at 21:39, D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
>Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
>From:           	"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
>To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>Date sent:      	29 May 2002 21:39:31 -0700
>Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>
> > 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> -----------+
> >
> >


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx