[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA
- To: dvd discussion list <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA
- From: John Galt <galt(at)inconnu.isu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:53:53 -0700 (MST)
- In-reply-to: <OFE1D21000.3BC6E2A7-ON88256C8C.000226C3@aero.org>
- Mail-followup-to: galt@inconnu.isu.edu
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
What about missing-and-presumed-dead? Is the copyright clock ticking, for
example, on some of the POW/MIAs? Amelia Earhart? AFAIK, nobody's ever
signed a Death Certificate on Amelia Earhart...
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
>The corpsicle argument, doesn't pass muster since the definition of death
>is a legal one-and very well established over many years.
>
>If the author is legally dead and then thrown into the vat. He's Dead and
>the copyright expiration clock starts ticking.
>If he isn't legally dead, then when thrown into the vat of liquid helium
>they will be dead because after being pulled out of the vat of helium the
>corpsicle starts to putrify once it thaws out. And if the author was still
>very much alive when thrown into the vat that's called homicide and they
>are legally dead. And if they threw themselves it's called suicide and
>they are legally dead so legally So the copyright expiration clock starts
>ticking after being thrown into the vat of helium. ...A corpsicle is still
>a corpse by the legally accepted definition of DEATH.
>
>SOmeone can define an info-theo defn. of death but that doens' mean that
>it's a legal one. IN this case, the info-theo defn. of death has no
>meaning either.
>
>The real question is not when the author dies legally but how do you
>determine it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jolley <tjolley@swbell.net>
>Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>12/10/2002 03:57 PM
>Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
>
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA
>
>
>Michael A Rolenz wrote:
>>
>>
>> "information-theoretic death depends on presently unknown details of
>> how the brain works." has no meaning. What that says is X is defined
>> by something unknown...
>>
>
>Exactly! The current length of copyright has no meaning. X, the
>current length of copyright, is defined by something unknown, when
>the author dies.
>
>
>
- --
EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE99uEE+ZSKG3nWr3ARAnckAKCDY7GttcIWEz07vvpPnc8eOcvFawCgr8pf
t6Oqd5ezr5Vosag9UuOIISk=
=OJQv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----