[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: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:08:06 -0700
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212101605240.28359-100000@gryphon>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Joshua Stratton wrote:
>
> Well, actually the pre-1976 term was 28 years, with a 28 year optional
> extension.
>
> 'Course, I'm more in favor of 20, with 5 for software.
>
> 28 would be an improvement at least, and there's no sense in preemptively
> compromising with an initial push for 50.
>
Agreed. Historically it's going to be hard to argue for less than 28
unless we want to take the risk of tying patent terms to copyright terms
in the policy debate. Given the power of Hollywood, we might end up
with 95 year patents. We'll argue for 28, if we get 50 it is certainly
better than the mess we have now.
.002
"Fix Copyright 28."