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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 7 Aug 2002 at 10:36, Bryan Taylor wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] [Off-topic] Eldred v. Ashcroft.
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> I wonder if you could make the case for any of the works that were first
> *published* just after the current public domain boundary that the work was in
> fact *created* before the boundary, so that the work is in fact public domain.

It's strange that you mention that...months ago I posted a question regarding 
the publishing of Clark Ashton Smith's juvenilia "Black Diamonds" this evening 
I got an email from the publisher asking if I had gotten any responses. Here's 
a work written in the 1910's  by an author who died in the 50's and was 
published in 2002.....the publisher, like myself, seemed to be wondering if 
anyone could sort it out....

> 
> --- Dean Sanchez <DSanchez@fcci-group.com> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com