🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 18:24:52 -0700, andysch <aschlaflyNOasSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
>>In article <08ed85b0.c307623a@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>
>andysch <aschlaflyNOasSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>>As to the issue of the D.C. Circuit judges hearing the Sonny
>>>Bono Act appeal, you were the one (not I) who thought their
>>>decision should be determinative of your views on its
>>>constitutionality.  My question was simply to ask you if you
>>>even knew the identity of the three individuals on which you
>>>were relying for your views.
>>
>>I didn't say that they would determine my views of whether term
>>extension is constitutional or not. ....
>>Again, I don't rely on them for my views....
>
>OK, fine, so ... what are your views about retroactive
>extensions of copyright duration?  In terms of economic
>efficiency and constitutional law, I don't see any justification
>for them.  In terms of defending inefficient corporate profits
>at public expense, there is an incentive for lobbying for these
>laws -- and that's why we suffer under them, until enough people
>complain.
>
>You say that Congress has been extending duration retroactively
>since at least 1975.  What's your view of this important issue?

They've been doing it since before them. IIRC they extended it around
1900. Copyright used to be 14 years in the USA, with an option of
renewal for another 14 years.

-- 
*****[ Phil Hunt ]*****
** The RIAA want to ban Napster -- so boycott the music industry!   **
** Don't buy CDs during August; see http://boycott-riaa.com/        **
** Spread the word: Put this message in your sig.                   **