Re: [dvd-discuss] Ex-post facto?

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 18 Oct 2002 at 20:00, Harry Eaton wrote:

From:           	"Harry Eaton" <haceaton@hotmail.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	[dvd-discuss] Ex-post facto?
Date sent:      	Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:00:14 -0400
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "D. C. Sessions" wrote:
> 
> >I don't think that qualifier is necessary in this case.
> >The proscribed act (publication) is still in the future,
> >so any law on the subject leaves the actor opportunity
> >to avoid the proscribed act.
> 
> I thought that some works that had become public domain
> were re-copyrighted by the Bono act; in that case, it
> becomes a very interesting question of exactly what "right"
> the copyright grants. If Eldred had made 10^8 copies of
> the work while it was public domain, is he not free to
> sell or give them away now? If not, does that not an
> ex-post-facto law (criminalize giving away his property),
> or at least a "taking" of that property?

See Golan v. Ashcroft at Openlaw..that is exactly the case with one of the Ps.

> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.  Try MSN! 
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
>