ELDRED

Linda Gruber writes,

>> The CTEA was a good thing. The Supreme Court made a wise decision.

She goes on to explain why she feels that strong copyright protection is, by and large, necessary and desirable. What she says, IMO, recognizes both the original spirit of the enabling clause and today's technology; as a self-employed writer, I'm inclined to agree with her (although I'm not sure that life+20 is the optimum term). I'm also inclined to concur with most of what Ivan Hoffman has said here.

But haven't many of the messages over the past few days--including that part of Linda's quoted above--confused two issues? And aren't many of the angry outbursts we've seen here misdirected?

Whether or not the CTEA--or copyright, or any other amendment to Title 17--is or is not a good thing is one issue (or group of issues).

I'm not a lawyer. But I'm under the impression that what SCOTUS was asked to rule on, and did rule on last week, was a different issue: Whether or not the Congress was within its constitutional rights in enacting the CTEA. The Court said that it was (and it seems to me that it was).

I *think* that the quarrel of those who object to any part of the Copyright Law or its amendments, including the CTEA, is with Congress, not SCOTUS.

If I've got this wrong, I'd welcome correction from the list's lawyers.

--DS Received on Wed Jan 22 2003 - 17:43:36 GMT