Re: [dvd-discuss] washington post on Eldridge v Ashcroft

["Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold(at)world.std.com>]

>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32259-2002Oct15.html

Here's a comment that I posted to their discussion board:

"The Post's editorial misses the point of Eldred's case. Eldred only 
takes issue with the practice of retroactive extension of copyright 
duration. He does not argue with Congress' right to set lengthy but 
fixed terms for new works. Eldred asks how an extension of copyright 
duration for existing works can "promote the Progress of Science and 
the useful Arts," as the Constitution requires. Created works need no 
additional incentive. A decision that copyrights last only for the 
term in effect when a work is created is a principled one that 
doesn't diminish legitimate legislative prerogatives. At the same 
time it allows many early 20th century works to enter the public 
domain after a generous time for their author's to derive income, 
while eliminating the major economic incentive to pressure Congress 
for ever longer copyrights."