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

[Ernest Miller <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>]

The argument isn't specious that way.  There are many unpublished works 
(in archives and collections, for example) that people have access to, 
but wouldn't be able to quote due to copyright.

I believe the argument is wrong because common law perpetual copyright 
for unpublished works is unconstitutional.  No law can say that some 
expressions are forever outside the public domain.

Dean Sanchez wrote:
> 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.
>