Subject:
|
Oral Argument: Eldred v. Ashcroft
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:39:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
440 times
|
| |
|
|
For more check out:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000985.html#000985
Article I of the U.S. Constitution states the following:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries;"
I don't have much to say here except that the words "limited times"
obviously has to mean something besides the equivalent of the words "in
perpetuity" to give weight to the word "limited". 70 years, the limit we had
before the current extension, was for all practical purposes the entire
possible lifetime of a creator of useful art -- and that must surely be
enough [e.g. An author writes a fantastically popular book at the age of 20,
being given 70 years of copyright protection means that he would have to
live over 90 years of age to outlive the expiry of the copyright protection
granted formerly; under current law he would have to live beyond 110 years!
Following the money I note that people don't yet commonly live this long,
but corporations do.]. I mean, if we lose all sight of what it means for a
power granted to congress to be limited, where are we then?
O right, 2002...Bush, Jr...Iraq...oil...corporate gods...terrorists...losing
rights...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
