3 ms·

> I disagree. Care to elaborate, and give some examples? Tks

• frobozz 11y ago
  What do you mean by elaborate? I thought my statement was pretty clear. From the linked article: "Readers – from the conspiracy theorist to the grammar enthusiast, the student of racial injustice to the sociologist – would have something to celebrate." If applying the pre-1978 laws to pre-1978 works would cause this celebration, then surely applying them to post-1978 works would also cause such celebration. For further elaboration - if the contemporary rules were applied, then a work from 1977 would become public domain in 2033 and a work from 1978 would become public domain in 2048 (or 2073). If the pre-1978 rules were to be reinstated today, without backdating, then that 1978 work would still take 70 or 95 years. With backdating, it would become public domain in 2034.
  • treenyc 11y ago
    Since you disagree with "Furthermore absolutely no viable public purpose can be served today by backdating new rules to past works." I just would like to know your bases for your disagreement, and ask for some examples. Maybe there is a misunderstanding.
    • frobozz 11y ago
      Are you only reading the first few words of my comments, and ignoring the rest? It's right there. A new rule that reduces the term opens up old works earlier than if the contemporary rule is left in place. Let's consider something other than copyright. It is bad to retroactively prosecute people for new crimes, but (for example) should people convicted of sodomy prior to 2003 have to serve out their (up to life) sentences, or since the act is no longer illegal, should they be freed? Surely, if an act is no longer a crime, it's abhorrent to treat people who have committed that act as criminals.
    • imtringued 11y ago
      Let's assume Disney wouldn't lobby for longer copyright durations and the politicians are aware of the advantages of the public domain. They could then reduce copyright durations of past works for the public's benefit.