Comments on: keeping focus

By: raha azad

raha azad — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 00:07:00 +0000

Hello dear and my friend Hello, very nice, thanks admin of this website. Thank. بانک ایمیل تور استانبول ارسال ایمیل تبلیغاتی تبلیغات در وایبر متره لیزری زیباترین آهنگ های بی کلام مشاوره ازدواج bye.d

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Sat, 12 Oct 2002 09:19:08 +0000

In the abstract, I think one could make a fair argument that shortening copyright retroactively would be a taking. Takings claims aren't terribly successful (see, e.g., Tahoe-Sierra v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) partially because (as Steven's majority opinion in the case says) it would really expensive to reimburse people, and would seem to many to set unreasonable limits on governmental power.

But, I think that there would be a decent case against retroactive shortening, at least to shortening beyond the portion when the art was created. Thomas's dissent (joined by Scalia) in Tahoe makes part of that case.

By: julian

julian — Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:39:38 +0000

Hah! An argued response to that invective filled screed makes about as much sense as answering in detail every creationist, flat earther, and tinfoil hat enthusiast with an email account. They're cited for amusement value, not because they deserve any serious attention.

By: Joseph Hertzlinger

Joseph Hertzlinger — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:52:39 +0000

I have a question.

If the court decides that Congress can retroactively change copyright terms, can it shorten them retroactively as well?

By: Matthew Skala

Matthew Skala — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:12:46 +0000

"Gratuitous ad hominem remark"? It's a simple statement of fact - they did call him a Marxist. It's in the Ayn Rand Institute release linked indirectly from his posting. His reporting of that doesn't make him guilty of an ad hominem attack himself.

By: Roger Zimmerman

Roger Zimmerman — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:07:09 +0000

When you get a chance, I'd be interested to hear your _argument_ regarding the Ayn Rand Institute's position on this case, as opposed to your current gratutitous ad hominem remark. In particular, do you believe that the financial success of the copyright holder should be a determinant of the validity and/or term of the copyright?

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:05:01 +0000

Whatever the court decides, you're doing a tremendous thing -- this isn't about bootlegging Mickey T-shirts or downloading Eminem tunes; it's about an open society and an evolving culture. Thanks for standing up for those things.

By: Louis

Louis — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:01:10 +0000

For myself, and other current and future Independant Multi-Media Artists, whose hands are tied by not being allowed two-way cultural communications: I send you beams of focus and strength.

+>'^'+>._.+>'^'+>._.+>'^'+>._.+>

By: Ron Schwartz

Ron Schwartz — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 06:27:10 +0000

I saw the article in the Chicago Tribune Tempo section written by David Streitfeld, staff writer for the L.A. Times. I understand much better what you are trying to accomplish in Eldred. I look forward to reading the transcript of the oral argument taking place today.

By: Harry Porterfield

Harry Porterfield — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 05:52:52 +0000

I wish i could have gone to DC to hear the arguements but tests and $$$ said otherwise. The arguements are about as good as they can be and congrats on that to the whole team.

Good luck and I hope the mouse gets free or at least bailed.