Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Timothy Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
> >
> > When the copyright extension bill passed the House, Mary Bono
> > expressed sentiments similar to Mary Rodgers':
> >
> > Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection
> > to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a
> > change would violate the Constitution.
>
> Does it bother anyone else that a member of Congress is so unfamiliar
> with the portion of the Constitution that sets out the powers of
> Congress that she has to be informed of basic limitations by "staff"?

Not in this case. While Terry's remark has a wonderful ring of irony, the issue that the Constitution permits a Copyright term to extend only for a limited time is sufficiently obscure -- except to we who practice law in the area -- that I don't find this troublesome, even for a member on that committee. Indeed, this is what staff lawyers are for.

What bothers me is that many Congresspersons too often need, and almost as often do not heed, staff advise about far more general issues that derive from more fundamental stuff, stuff we learned in our first civics class about basic rights, leading to travesties such as CDA and son-thereof.

Andrew C. Greenberg
<werdna[_at_]gate.net> Received on Thu Oct 29 1998 - 14:18:20 GMT