🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3991AC1D.307651B0@my-dejanews.com> Roger Schlafly <roger_95073@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>Lee Hollaar wrote:
>> So, why not find out if it is true. 
>
>The harmonization argument is pretty bogus. From the brief:

Funny how you snipped what I was replying to, which was that the poster
thought, if the EU had extended copyright protection first, then the
reason Congress gave was valid.

All I suggested is that he determine if what his qualification was was
true or not.

As to the brief, why should that be given any more credibility than
Congress' statement?  Both are trying to justify the position they
advocate.  And, you'll notice that they do confirm the harmonization
with the European countries, but try to say that is somehow meaningless
because other countries, like Lower Slovonia, haven't raised their
copyright term yet.


>  Second, it is untrue that the CTEA fulfills a government interest in
>harmonizing the copyright laws of the United States with those of
>foreign countries. To the extent that there is any harmonization at all,
>it is harmonization only with European countries, not with the many
>other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention. Moreover,
>the CTEA creates disharmony with European Union countries in such areas
>as works by corporate authors, with respect to such works as films,
>sound recordings and photographs. 
>http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno/appealbrief.html


>See also amicus brief:
>http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno/eagleforum-amicus.pdf

Oh, did mommy file one, too?