Silliness So what are you doing RIGHT NOW? - Page 163

ShortNCuddlyAm · 01-05-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

Just got my grades from the two graduate classes I took in the fall. I got A's in both, so I guess my professor in the problematic course liked my final paper.

Well done!!

Wetdogeared · 01-05-2009, 02:28 PM

I recently typed in the year "2009" for the first time. (ambiguous statement). My how time flys.

Libby Cone · 01-05-2009, 02:45 PM

I'm doing the happy dance because SUNY faxed me a page out of an 1800's book about the American Colonies so I don't have to travel to Stony Brook!

montsnmags · 01-05-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

Just got my grades from the two graduate classes I took in the fall. I got A's in both, so I guess my professor in the problematic course liked my final paper.

WOOHOO! Time for a HAPPY! HAPPY! JOY! JOY! dance.

(I said the above in another thread too - a Taylor-made Harv and Vera first sentence. Please note that they are similar-but-different, and not to be aligned on any scale other than that of pleasure

).

Cheers,
Marc

yvanleterrible · 01-05-2009, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

Just got my grades from the two graduate classes I took in the fall. I got A's in both, so I guess my professor in the problematic course liked my final paper.

You're a brain Neko, never doubt it.

Greg Anos · 01-06-2009, 07:31 AM

I have been thinking...about American Constitutional Law. And copyright changes over the years (i.e. since 1976). I was wondering of any of the lawyers in the house might unofficially weigh in on the following concept...

On of the bedrock pieces of our jurisprudence is the concept of no ex post facto law. For the non-latin speakers, that means in the US you can't make a law that applies retroactively. In other words, you can't put someone in jail for doing something that was legal when he/she did it, but the law was changed to make that act illegal later and backdated to make your act criminal, even though it was legal at the time.

I started wondering, are extension of the copyright law effective an ex post facto law change? Not for current works, but the retroactive application to previous work created under older copyright law?

RSE

pshrynk · 01-06-2009, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have been thinking...about American Constitutional Law. And copyright changes over the years (i.e. since 1976). I was wondering of any of the lawyers in the house might unofficially weigh in on the following concept...

On of the bedrock pieces of our jurisprudence is the concept of no ex post facto law. For the non-latin speakers, that means in the US you can't make a law that applies retroactively. In other words, you can't put someone in jail for doing something that was legal when he/she did it, but the law was changed to make that act illegal later and backdated to make your act criminal, even though it was legal at the time.

I started wondering, are extension of the copyright law effective an ex post facto law change? Not for current works, but the retroactive application to previous work created under older copyright law?

RSE

Not a lawyer, but...

zelda_pinwheel · 01-06-2009, 08:51 AM

i am pretty sure that once a work falls into the pd, it stays there, however if it is still under copyright and the law is changed, the copyright is extended (otherwise, disney wouldn't keep lobbying for longer copyright terms). this latter case would seem like a case of ex post facto to me (shouldn't the copyright in effect at the time of publication apply ??) but like pshrynk i'm not a lawyer...

that's also why there are some works which are in the pd in the US but nowhere else, particularly the ones published before 1924 (? 1923 ? whatever year it was), or the ones whose copyright was not renewed, at a time when it was necessary to do so (no longer the case).

Patricia · 01-06-2009, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

IOn of the bedrock pieces of our jurisprudence is the concept of no ex post facto law. For the non-latin speakers, that means in the US you can't make a law that applies retroactively. In other words, you can't put someone in jail for doing something that was legal when he/she did it, but the law was changed to make that act illegal later and backdated to make your act criminal, even though it was legal at the time.

I'm no lawyer either. But it seems to me that in the case of copyright extensions there is no time when the highlighted phrase above actually applies. If the work is in copyright then it is illegal to copy it. If the copyright is extended then it is still illegal. There's no point where a previously legal copy becomes illegal.

It is noticeable that when Austalia moved from a life+50 years to a life+70 years copyright law, all works that had been PD all stayed PD, so as to avoid retrospective legislation.

Greg Anos · 01-06-2009, 10:04 AM

I think I'm going to copy my question to it's own thread....

zelda_pinwheel · 01-06-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I think I'm going to copy my question to it's own thread....

do you want me to move your question and all the replies to a new thread ?

Greg Anos · 01-06-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

do you want me to move your question and all the replies to a new thread ?

Well, I've started the thread. Adding the replys would be very nice, Your majesty. :Kneelsbeforescreen:

Greg Anos · 01-06-2009, 10:17 AM

Here's what showing up on my ads now....

Attorney Jay A. Bender
Former Dallas & Collin Prosecutor DWI, Drug Cases, Assaults, Murder
www.lawbender.com

Lawbender indeed! No place but Texas....

desertgrandma · 01-06-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Well, I've started the thread. Adding the replys would be very nice, Your majesty. :Kneelsbeforescreen:

Now I know why you are a 'sir'.

You know how to suck up, er, I mean, correctly address the queen!

Greg Anos · 01-06-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Now I know why you are a 'sir'.

You know how to suck up, er, I mean, correctly address the queen!

Don't worry, I've got coffee and donuts fer you, and I'll even take you to see the Camel. I'm an equal opportunity suck-up...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2009, 02:28 PM	#2432
Wetdogeared Storm Surge'n Posts: 5,780 Karma: 8213195 Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Polar Vortex Device: S0ny PRS-300/350/505/700/T1	I recently typed in the year "2009" for the first time. (ambiguous statement). My how time flys.

01-05-2009, 02:45 PM	#2433
Libby Cone scribbler Posts: 117 Karma: 246 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Philadelphia USA Device: Kindle	I'm doing the happy dance because SUNY faxed me a page out of an 1800's book about the American Colonies so I don't have to travel to Stony Brook!

01-06-2009, 07:31 AM	#2436
Greg Anos Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,527 Karma: 37057604 Join Date: Jan 2008 Device: Pocketbook	I have been thinking...about American Constitutional Law. And copyright changes over the years (i.e. since 1976). I was wondering of any of the lawyers in the house might unofficially weigh in on the following concept... On of the bedrock pieces of our jurisprudence is the concept of no ex post facto law. For the non-latin speakers, that means in the US you can't make a law that applies retroactively. In other words, you can't put someone in jail for doing something that was legal when he/she did it, but the law was changed to make that act illegal later and backdated to make your act criminal, even though it was legal at the time. I started wondering, are extension of the copyright law effective an ex post facto law change? Not for current works, but the retroactive application to previous work created under older copyright law? RSE

01-06-2009, 08:51 AM	#2438
zelda_pinwheel zeldinha zippy zeldissima Posts: 27,827 Karma: 921169 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Paris, France Device: eb1150 & is that a nook in her pocket, or she just happy to see you?	i am pretty sure that once a work falls into the pd, it stays there, however if it is still under copyright and the law is changed, the copyright is extended (otherwise, disney wouldn't keep lobbying for longer copyright terms). this latter case would seem like a case of ex post facto to me (shouldn't the copyright in effect at the time of publication apply ??) but like pshrynk i'm not a lawyer... that's also why there are some works which are in the pd in the US but nowhere else, particularly the ones published before 1924 (? 1923 ? whatever year it was), or the ones whose copyright was not renewed, at a time when it was necessary to do so (no longer the case).

01-06-2009, 10:04 AM	#2440
Greg Anos Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,527 Karma: 37057604 Join Date: Jan 2008 Device: Pocketbook	I think I'm going to copy my question to it's own thread....

01-06-2009, 10:17 AM	#2443
Greg Anos Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,527 Karma: 37057604 Join Date: Jan 2008 Device: Pocketbook	Here's what showing up on my ads now.... Attorney Jay A. Bender Former Dallas & Collin Prosecutor DWI, Drug Cases, Assaults, Murder www.lawbender.com Lawbender indeed! No place but Texas....