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

[Tim Neu <tim(at)tneu.visi.com>]

What a piece of work!
(http://llr.lls.edu/eldred/martin-original1.pdf)

I haven't finished the whole thing, but so far, I'm not impessed.

He argues extensively that the copyright extensions actually reduced
copyright protections, that according to his paper page 66 Section C, do
not exist! (since he claims the "limited terms" clause abolished the
common-law copyrights).

Which is it?

a.  Common law copyright was not superceeded by the "limited times"
clause, thus allowing him to claim that the copyright extensions expanded
the public domain by replacing common-law copyright with a fixed term, or

b.  Common law copyright _was_ superceeded by the "limited times", so the
extensions couldn't have expanded the public domain, since there was no
common-law copyright for unpublished items anyway.

In case a, limited times must be explained, without the common-law
copyright fiction.

In case b, then how on earth did chaging the perpetual common-law
copyrights on unpublished works to fixed terms increase the public domain?

After claiming time and time again that the extensions actually _reduced_
copyright protection, he then claims that the basis for his previous
argument doesn't exist!

If the Copyright Clause of the constitution abolished common law
copyright, then how could the enactment of the extensions remove the
common-law copyright?   He's trying to play both ways with a contradictory
argument.

I think it would be well worth our time to create a rebuttal...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
______         _ __                          Military Intelligence
  /           ' )  )        -KC0LQL-         Honest Politician
 / o ______    /  / _  . .                   Intellectual Property
/ <_/ / / <   /  (_</_(_/_  -- tneu@visi.com / http://www.visi.com/~tneu --