Some of us right wing ideologues, perhaps most, deplore the extension. Anyway, wasn't it Clinton who signed the bill? The majority opinion was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal ideologue. Several of the justices in hearing oral arguments suggested that they didn't like the law but believed that it was constitutional. It seems that it was a agreed that perpetual copyright would be unconstitutional, because the Constitution refers to a limited time. The dissenters, Breyer and Stevens, said that 95 years was approximately perpetual.
From: "Steve Gray" <stevebg@adelphia.net> fun>, <mailto:math-fun-request@mailman.xmission.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/private/math-fun/> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:21:38 -0800
----- Original Message ----- From: <asimovd@aol.com> To: <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:55 PM Subject: [math-fun] Copyright extension
The Supreme Court just blessed the law of 1998 extending the 75 years of copyright protection to 95 years.
(See <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/15/business/15CND-COPY.html>.)
This isn't great news for The People, who benefit by having works fall into the public domain.
GRAY: And in about 2020, if the congress then is as disgustingly corrupt as the present one, they will extend it to maybe 200 years. (Why fool around with small increases?) And if the Supremes are as dominated by right-wing ideologues as they are now, the extension will be blessed again.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun