On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Peter Groves <peter.groves[_at_]virgin.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2000, Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> >
> > I think setting out analogues between land use and ownership and
> > copyright use and ownership is at the *least* highly problematic.
> > It has been thoroughly aired on this list and I won't burder folks
> > with any sort of replay! Once statutory copyright was introduced
> > in the U.K. with the Act of Anne (1710?), analogues with land became
> > imo, moot.
>
> 1709.
according to the then existing calendar, it was 1709, according to current calendar, it was 1710.
here is the explanation of Professor L. Ray Patterson, in "Copyright in Historical Perspective (1968), at footnote 3, on p. 3:
"...
The statute was enacted in the calendar year 1709 and became
effective in April 1710. At this time, however, the beginning
of the year in England was March 25. It was not until 1752 that
January 1st was designated as the beginning of the year in England
by the Calendar year Act of 1750... By modern reckoning, the
statute was both enacted and became effective in 1710."
so, for whoever wants to cling to the old English calendar, happy new year!
Michael Birnhack
<mdb210[_at_]hotmail.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:38 GMT