David W. Fenton wrote:
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*
They might consider 1000 years to be excessive but by their own
arguments (I remember reading about that decision at the time) it would
still be limited which is the word used in the constitution so they
still couldn't strike it down.
That's what we get for having a constitution written by people who knew
what they meant but interpreted by people who haven't got a clue what
the original writers or voters meant and so have to abide by the precise
(or imprecise, to be more precise) words used.
I'll double your *sigh*!
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
