Yes, it is conceivable that life is unlimited, at least one human has already made that claim and there is a whole religion based on it. This argument seems to be much like the reverse of the statute of frauds issue wherein if it is conceivable that the contract can be performed in one year, it is not within the statute?
many people are now living over 100 years, and I have always been told that perpetual is anything over 99 years? What happened to that idea?
It is conceivable that life is perpetutal, and the cessation of body functions, only change the place and time of expression of the same life? Also there is no requirement that one stay in one body, for life to continue. so if we exchange life from body to body as each body ages and wears out (that is why cloning technology is so important) or if one person is lucky enough to have a body that functions for ever either way life in the human body is perpetual. I do not know how anyone can say a particular body will not be perpetual until it ceases to function and the life therein is proven to be non existent
The argument exists that ones life "does not end on" the cessation of the bodies functions, because the same life is continued in a different environment with no requirement of a body for its continuation.
What about equal protection clause issues resulting from the differences in lives of different individuals and how that impacts on the present value of property rights. A person who dies at age 20 does not get the same benefit as a person who lives to be 100.
finally, this issue of perpetual life regards both patents and copyrights, was argued very persuasively in the courts in England about 1788 and the perpetual people lost. The copyright and patent clause should never have been allowed into the constitution.
I am no lawyer, but life has no definite end, no definite definition that can stand the test of likely "as to time certain" based on current and emerging capabilities in life science. What happens when someone lives 400 years? Does that person's copyrights get +70 more in monopoly interest, next after that will be someone who lives 2000 years and so on?
sterling
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Michael R. Klipper wrote:
> David--
>
> Have you picked up new intelligence on Golan? Hope all is well.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Carson" <daca[_at_]loc.gov>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Golan v. Ashcroft
>
>
> > The complaint has been amended (post-Eldred), and continues to claim
> > that term extension was unconstitutional! Perhaps the district court
> > will overrule the Supreme Court.
> >
> > The CTEA claim appears to be slightly different than in Eldred; it seems
> > to claim that life + 70 is not a "limited time."
> >
> > >>> jrfriedman59[_at_]yahoo.com 03/17/03 00:46 AM >>>
> > Does anyone know where this case currently stands? Was
> > the CTEA part of the complaint dismissed after the
> > decision in Eldred? What about the complaint alleging
> > that the URAA is unconstitutional?
> >
> > Jessica Friedman
> >
> > =====
> > Jessica R. Friedman
> > Attorney at Law
> > 757 Third Avenue
> > Suite 1903
> > New York, New York 10017
> > Phone: 212-973-9100
> > Fax:`212-973-9101
> >
> >
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
Received on Thu Nov 13 2003 - 21:55:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT