In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
It seems to me that works could be removed from the public domain
without passing an ex post facto law, as long as this hypothetical law
did not affect works created or copies
Michael Shields wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
It seems to me that works could be removed from the public domain
without passing an ex post facto law, as long as this hypothetical law
did not
The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
Marc
Bill Stewart wrote:
There were documents that were _going_ to become public domain soon
that will now stay copyrighted for another 20 years,
and one of the issues addressed by the Supremes in Eldred was
whether the grant of an extra 20
Bill Stewart wrote:
At 09:54 AM 01/20/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
It dwindles because the rate at which the copyright period is increasing
averages more than 1 year/year. Quite a number of works which had
been in the public domain fell out of it when the 20 year extension went
into
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:51:46 +0800, you wrote:
The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
Marc
First, the US Constitution is a piece of paper currently being
ignored by this administration, and most likely any
administration going forward.
The current stance of the US government is
Alif The Terrible wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
Which has not stopped them yet.
Actually, that provision has held quite well so far. I can't think of
one exception...unless it's this latest copyright extension.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:26:22 +0800, you wrote:
Alif The Terrible wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
Which has not stopped them yet.
Actually, that provision has held quite well so far. I can't think of
one
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
Which has not stopped them yet.
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards
Peter Fairbrother[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Bill Stewart wrote:
At 09:54 AM 01/20/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
It dwindles because the rate at which the copyright period is
increasing
averages more than 1 year/year. Quite a number of works which had
been in the public domain fell
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
However, in 1993, Republic Pictures started to assert control on
the basis that the song Buffalo Girls (which occurs many times
throughout the film) was still in copyright.
So, the film has effectively been removed from PD, after being in PD
for
Jack Lloyd[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
However, in 1993, Republic Pictures started to assert control on
the basis that the song Buffalo Girls (which occurs many times
throughout the film) was still in copyright.
So, the film has effectively been
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
The song is sung by Jimmy Stewart, on camera, so a new soundtrack
would be tough.
Given that they can make dead actors dance in commercials, I can't imagine
it would be terribly difficult to do it. Though I know next to nothing
about video editing in
At 2:50 PM -0800 1/21/03, Jack Lloyd wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
The song is sung by Jimmy Stewart, on camera, so a new soundtrack
would be tough.
Given that they can make dead actors dance in commercials, I can't imagine
it would be terribly difficult to do it. Though I
At 03:36 PM 01/21/2003 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:
But after making this dead actor sing a different song,
it would a new work, and the copyright clock would be reset.
Now if someone wants to do the work on an open-source-like basis...
It's obviously a job for an Alan Smithee film...
you can
None of this is relevant to individuals copying works for scholarship or
research. Fair Use still applies.
Matthew X wrote:
We learned as much on Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
Congress can repeatedly extend copyright terms, as it did most recently in
1998 when it added 20
Marc de Piolenc[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Matthew X wrote:
We learned as much on Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
Congress can repeatedly extend copyright terms, as it did most recently
in
1998 when it added 20 years to the terms for new and existing works.
He wanted
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:34:09 +0800, you wrote:
None of this is relevant to individuals copying works for scholarship or
research. Fair Use still applies.
Matthew X wrote:
We learned as much on Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
Congress can repeatedly extend copyright
At 09:54 AM 1/20/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
How can it dwindle? The public domain can only increase or hold
steady. All this ruling does is damp the rate of increase.
Marc de Piolenc
It dwindles because the rate at which the copyright period is increasing
averages more than 1 year/year.
--
From: Steve Schear[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Supremes and thieves.
At 09:54 AM 1/20/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
How can it dwindle? The public domain can only increase or hold
At 09:54 AM 01/20/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
It dwindles because the rate at which the copyright period is increasing
averages more than 1 year/year. Quite a number of works which had
been in the public domain fell out of it when the 20 year extension went
into effect.
The public domain
20 matches
Mail list logo
