Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

On Mon, Oct 26, 1998, Vance R. Koven <vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/23/98, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Limited" doesn't mean "short"; it simply means "having a definite
> > end." We could allow copyright for life plus 600 years and that
> > would still be "a limited time."
> >
> > I agree it's important to get at what the framers had in mind when
> > they drafted Article I, Section 8, but I don't think redefining the
> > term "limited" is the way to do it.
>
> How about this radical thought: instead of focusing on the word
> "limited" we look a little farther in the IP clause to where it says
> "securing to Authors and Inventors..."? I think a good case can be
> made that any term beyond the lifetime of the author does not secure
> anything to the author, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Well, of course, if you consider "perpetual" to be the opposite of "limited," the founders were well aware of a rule of law that considered a period comprising the term of a life in being plus 20 years not to be a perpetuity. That would tend to work against arguments criticizing terms of a life plus a fixed period.

Of course, two lifetimes (life of author plus 70) seems to be stretching even that argument.

Andrew C. Greenberg
<werdna[_at_]gate.net> Received on Thu Oct 29 1998 - 12:42:19 GMT