Re: New section 512

On 11/24/98, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Jessica Litman <litman[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > One of my copyright students stumped me this morning with a question
> > -- Both the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Public L.
> > 105-298, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public L. 105-304,
> > purport to add a new section 512 to title 17. (I was embarrassed to
> > confess that I hadn't noticed the duplication.)
>
> You think that's bad, there are 4 sections 101(1) and 101(2), and three
> sections 101(3).
>
> > In any event, as my student put it, "Which is the right section
> > 512?" and "What's the other one called?"
>
> PL 105-298 came first (October 27, compared to PL105-304's oct. 28),
> so I'd call its contribution "the First Section 512" and the other
> "the Second Section 512." Until Congress someday gets around to
> making another technical corrections bill, anyway. ("life+70? Shoot,
> we meant life+170!")

Terry,

   When this happens in California, the last bill signed amends the law as enacted in prior bills signed thus "erasing", or as it's called in the Capitol "chaptering out", any duplicate earlier signed provisions. Is this NOT the case in federal law? I should think it would be. Thus the last signed bill would override earlier signed provisions.

• Kaye

Kaye Caldwell
<kaye[_at_]ix.netcom.com> Received on Wed Nov 25 1998 - 14:34:27 GMT