|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 01:07 PM EST |
If it is not unlimited then it is limited. The exact length is a policy
question. That is why we elect a Congress. If you disagree with the policy then
bring it up with your Congressman.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 01:17 PM EST |
Larry Lessig
argued this before the Supreme Court and lost. It would seem any term is for a
limited time. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 01:51 PM EST |
True immortality is assumed impossible, then the author will die, and the
clock ticks down to an ordained day when the copyright expires. Now it
can be argued that the magnitude of the number is irrational, in a
pathological sense, but it's entirely within the power of Congress to
write any number they choose in that space.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 02:13 PM EST |
That depends on your definition of "limited".
If you mean no end ever, then a long, long
time is limited if there is a designated end.
If you mean limited as in "not reeeeeally long"
then you'd be right. But the court defined it
the first way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:59 PM EST |
Some how this subject conjurs up the thought of "forever minus one
day" is defined as a limited time in legal terms. Where did I hear that
from? Alas, I don't remember. Maybe Mickey Mouse said it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
