RE: [dvd-discuss] [Off-topic] Eldred v. Ashcroft.

["Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez(at)fcci-group.com>]

I think one of the most specious arguments he makes is the one that Congress has "dramatically increased the scope of the public domain" by limiting the copyright of non-published works to life+70.  What a croak!  If it wasn't published, who cares if the copyright was unlimited.  The public never got to see or benefit from its existence anyway.  Once it was published, it fell under the copyright guidelines and would eventually became part of the public domain.

-----Original Message-----
From: 78v3rc001@sneakemail.com [mailto:78v3rc001@sneakemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 7:41 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [Off-topic] Eldred v. Ashcroft.


I saw this too. You need to have a gasbag to kick around anyway. He is legal counsel for paramount, so it's his job. He lists "ten myths" about copyright extension/public domain. I thought that it would be good to have "ten myths refuted" if there was an audience for it. 

Phill K.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "microlenz@earthlink.net



> Check out the link there
> 
> http://llr.lls.edu/
> 
> Loyala is putting together a synmposium but one strikes my eye and offends it
> 
> The Mythology Of The Public Domain:
>     Exploring The Myths Behind Attacks On The
>     Duration Of Copyright Protection 
> 
>     Scott M. Martin