 |
Report on Columbia's Conference, ''The New Gatekeepers'' |
|
 |
| |
 |
Login |
 |
 |
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
|
 |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Article Rating |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
"User's Login" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: Report on Columbia's Conference, ''The New Gatekeepers'' (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Tuesday, November 26 @ 15:56:36 EST | While the First Amendment argument in Eldred derives in part from the (corporate) speech that copyright term extension will produce and the (alternative) speech it will suppress, it remains rooted in the claim that Congress itself had abrogated its first amendment duty. In particular, the petitioners asserted that the government failed in its duty to demonstrate an "important government interest" in extending the copyright term. At some level, then, in this instance the government remains the gatekeeper. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
Leges
humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die
All stories, comments and submissions copyright their respective posters. Everything Else
Copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later
(the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php
|