Keith, The intellectual foundation for your argument is dubious. It rests on the theory that Intellectual property is not real property since I hear no argument for real property being recirculated out of the family of an owner seventy years after their death.
Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ray Evans Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 6:33 AM Subject: Test case on copyright (was Re: Intellectual Property (was Re: Fish and Chips) > Hi Ray, > > I can't cope with all the strands of your recent posting, but in the > meantime you and other FWers might be interested in a test case that is > being considered by the US Supreme Court. This is from today's FT: > > <<<< > COPYRIGHT LAW COMES UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT > Patti Walmeir > > The US Supreme Court agreed yesterday to make a rare foray into > intellectual property law. It will hear a case which attacks recent trends > in US law that have expanded the scope and duration of copyright at the > expense of pubic access to copyrighted works. > > It was brought by Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Univeristy law professor and > theorist of the digital society, on behalf of Eric Eldred, who wanted to > compile and electronic archive of unusual and out-of-print works online, > but was prevented from posting some works by a 1998 law extending the term > of copyright protection. > > Mr Lessig said US copyright law allows creators to monopolise their > creations in ways that stifle future innovation. In the case before the > court, he said Congress has exceeded its constitutional authority by > extending the term of copyright 11 times in the past 40 years. In 1790, > copyrights lasted 14 years. Now they last 70 years after the death of the > inventor, if known. > > Mr Lessig said these extensions violate the constitutional's command to > Congress that it "promotes 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". > > Copyrights of such length are no longer "limited", he argued; and Congress > could scarecely claim to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" > when it extends the copyright of dead authors who cannot obey the incentive > to create more. The case is part of a larger movement to defend the "public > domain", the realm of information available freely to all. > > Mr Lessig thinks every time Congress extends copyright it impoverishes the > public domain. He argued that, because creativity builds on itself, it has > nothing to build on when public access to copyrighted works is unreasonably > restricted. > > The Bush administration will argue that the law does not violate the > constitution. > <<<< > � Financial Times 20 February 2002 > __________________________________________________________ > "Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in > order to discover if they have something to say." John D. Barrow > _________________________________________________ > Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________ >
