On 11/24/2012 07:31 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In <[email protected]>, on 11/23/2012
at 12:34 PM, Randy Hudson <[email protected]> said:
There was a 2002 Supreme Court case on that, Eldred v Ashcroft;
<the Court held that as long as Congress specified a specific term
for copyrights, the laws were Constitutional, even if they
regularly extended that term.
I'm quite certain that the founding fathers would have called that
judicial activism, or something less polite.
Just a week ago, there was an interesting development, as the US
House Republicans first published and then recalled a document
urging an overhaul of US copyright law.
Why did they recall it?
Obviously a case where the libertarian wing of the Republican party was
kneecapped by the 1%-wealth wing. If they had been able to make a
strong theological argument for restricting copyright extensions and get
the Republican-Taliban wing on board as well, they might have had a chance.
--
Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
