On 26 Mar 2007 at 16:57, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On Mar 26, 2007, at 4:55 AM, dhbailey wrote: > > > he doesn't define what he thinks a "limited time (in the Thomas > > Jefferson sense)" really is, so we're each left to picture our own > > interpretation of that remark. > > I think it may be said without fear of contradiction that "limited > time" was not intended to encompass a period extending 70 or even > fifty years beyond the creator's death. Personally, I doubt the > framers of the constitution thought of anything more than 15 or 20 > years--but hey...
Yes, but the last time the Supreme Court considered the issue, they struggled with that one, and concluded that any period of time less than infinity was by definition "limited" and since the Constitution doesn't place any limits on what is reasonable, they couldn't overturn the copyright restrictions they were considering (I can't remember which case it was). If I'm remembering correctly, the oral arguments centered in large part on this issue. I got the feeling that if it were set at 1000 years, they'd consider it excessive, but couldn't bring themselves to consider 70 years outside the purview of Congress to decide. *sigh* -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
