[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Specific ironies of the CTEA
- From: Joshua Stratton <cpt(at)gryphon.auspice.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:10:51 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <OF828F37B0.7E6BEAEA-ON88256C8C.00786E88@aero.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> .002's comment is apt. To flip the USSC on its head (figeratively), we
> went from a simple copyright system that everybody could understand ("c"
> notice" + date of publication) to a complicated one that nobody can
> (life+N(t), N'(t)>0). The confusion that would be caused by eliminating
> the latter is less than the confusion caused and forseeablly to be caused
> by adopting the latter. One piece of mischief is the N(t) above.
In fact, there was a term length question on my IP exam yesterday. I gave
the correct answer, but noted that the prof. was being awfully optimistic
about the Eldred case in having an end date at all. ;)