Re: [dvd-discuss] O'Connor quoted at USA Today from Eldred oral argument

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

What do  you think ASATs are for?  ;-)


On 11 Oct 2002 at 15:34, Sham Gardner wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 11 Oct 2002 15:34:22 +0200
From:           	Sham Gardner <mail@risctaker.inka.de>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] O'Connor quoted at USA Today from Eldred oral argument
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 09:14:31AM -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote:
> > : > Section 9, paragraph 3: "No bill of 
> > : > attainder or ex post facto Law
> > : > shall be passed."
> > : 
> > : It doesn't apply to making future actions (e.g. publication
> > : of _The_Jungle_Book_ less than 70 years after Kipling's death)
> > : illegal.
> > 
> > That is correct, but only because in CALDER v. BULL, 3 U.S. 38
> > (1798) the Supreme Court held that the ``ex post facto'' clause
> > only applies to penal (which pretty much means ``criminal'') 
> > cases.
> 
> Aren't there criminal provisions in copyright law?
> 
> Also what about this for an unlikely but possible hypothetical scenario:
> 
> Some rich eccentric loads up a satellite with works whose copyright has not yet
> expired and programs it to beam a continuous stream of these works to Earth as
> their copyright terms expire. The satellite is designed to operate autonomously
> once launched and is not fitted with any equipment for receiving signals of any
> kind, so can't be provided with updated expiry times.
> 
> Would something like this be considered legal without a retroactive
> extension beging passed in the time between the device's launch and the
> expiry of the first copyright in its memory? If so what would be the
> situation if a retroactive extension were passed following its launch?
> 
> -- 
> http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/
> 
> "You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it to peace"
> (Michael Franti)