Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

[Ernest Miller <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>]

One of the problems I have with "lifetime of the author" as part of a 
copyright term is that it tends to place emphasis on "natural rights" of 
the author as opposed to the public as SJ writes below.

Seth Johnson wrote:
> I think the key here is to emphasize that exclusive rights
> need to be granted or denied by Congress with attention to
> the public interest, rather than solely in terms of the
> personal interests of Authors and Inventors.  It's the
> consideration of what's at stake for the rights of the
> public that's been left out of consideration by Congress
> throughout the history of exclusive rights legislation.  The
> shorter the term, the better, because the very concept of
> "exclusive rights" itself is striking increasingly wide of
> the mark.
> 
> Seth Johnson
> 
> someone somewhere wrote:
> 
>>>From: Jolley <tjolley@swbell.net>
>>>Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>>>To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>>>Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
>>>Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:20:01 -0500
>>>
>>>The answer for an upper limit could be in the constitution.
>>>  ...by securing for limited Times to Authors...
>>>Anything granted beyond an author's lifetime is being granted to
>>>someone else.
>>>
>>
>>If an author's lifetime would be the upper limit, then there's not much
>>point to having 'limited times' in there. Then they could have just said :
>>...by securing to Authors...
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> 
>