Re: Constitutional Challenge to (C) Code

From: NANCY or LARRY URBANSKI <larryu[_at_]interaccess.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:31:17 -0600

Amy Stoller <redherring[_at_]tuna.net> wrote:
>
> Robert E. Smith <cosmith[_at_]ash.palni.edu> wrote:
> >
> > What would be the likelyhood of success for a Constitutional Challenge
> > of the Duration of Copyright under both current and pending US Code?
> > It seems to me that life plus fifty-seventy years does not "promote
> > the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited
> > time." I do not understand how a lifetime beyond my lifetime is
> > limited and how it guarentees my right to my work when I am dead.
> > Class action, anyone?
>
> If you have produced any intellectual property, your heirs will have
> control over its disposition and will be able to benefit from it for
> seventy years after you die. Lifetime plus seventy years is by
> definition a limited time. The extension from fifty to seventy years
> brings the US in line with the rest of the signatories to Berne and
> gives artists a chance to leave something to their children with a
> reasonable hope that those children may benefit thereby. It is a
> sensible provision, given increased life expectancy. I hope it is not
> your position that creators and owners of intellectual property should
> be unable to leave anything of value to their spouses and children, or
> that their heirs should have to endure without remedy uses of their
> spouses or parents' life work which are repugnant to them.

I could agree with your argument if the legislation was not retroactive. The extension lenghtens works of authors from 1923. The lifetimes were shorter then, so the term they agreed to at that time fits their lifetime.

Copyright is not for "limited times" if every 20 years there is an extension on "old" works. In 1978 there was a 20 year extension. I forsee an attempt in 20 years to extend to 90 plus life if the present legislation passes.

The present legislation would be fair to authors and the public if it was proactive only. It would also be in the true spirit to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."

Larry Urbanski
<larryu[_at_]interaccess.com> Received on Tue Mar 31 1998 - 16:32:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:29 GMT