On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]>wrote:
> > And the Court has apparently said that since copyright terms are not a > promise by one party to the other, but rather a statutory matter subject > to policy changes like any other regulation, then it is constitutional > to change term lengths (and even other conditions of copyright) > retroactively in ways that harm or favor *either* party > That means we can advocate for retrocactively *shortening* terms. It > might be unlikely that the current Congress would pass that, of course, > but if they did, the precedent is established that the change would be > constitutional. > Can't find the cite right now, but IIRC this is explicitly stated in the Golan opinion. Parker -- parker higgins san francisco, ca http://parkerhiggins.net gmail / gchat: [email protected] twitter / identi.ca: @xor please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a proprietary platform
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
