Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty

[Sham Gardner <mail(at)risctaker.inka.de>]

On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 12:32:40PM -0800, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> I just finished reading the SCOTUS decision...what rambling tortured 
> argumentation....with an occasional sneer at the dissents. After obfuscating 
> enough, they simply conclude "the petitioner is wrong"
> 
> I don't think the proposal in 
> http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/EAFAQ.html
> will pass muster. While politically compromising...the approach of allowing 
> profitable works to keep paying the tax ad infinitum WOULD be constitutionally 
> invalid under the SCOTUS decision.  THe decision pointed out that "well even 
> though the terms are getting longer, they still are limited" Such an approach 
> would permit unlimited terms and so would not pass even under this ruling. 

The proposal doesn't actually say it would allow copyrights to extend
indefinitely if the payments were made. It's not really clear on the matter
at all. I understood it to mean that maximum terms would be left as they
are, but n years into that term copyright protection ceases to be automatic.

But aside from that. Didn't it say 30 years rather than 50 a few days ago?
I realise placing the threshold further back probably makes the proposal
more palatable to the other side, but I wouldn't have thought it would take
50 years.

-- 
http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/

"No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of
arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for
freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot
stand." (Ambassador G'Kar, Babylon 5)