But there's also the disquieting tendency towards conglomerates swallowing up public domain works and issuing "special editions", then defending a copyright that is based on that new edition and not the original time of writing...<div>
<br></div><div>We may have to end up like the famous Ray Bradbury story, with each one of us responsible for ensuring access to one cultural treasure for all mankind, no matter what the US signs or doesn't sign.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Victor Kane</div><div><a href="http://awebfactory.com.ar">http://awebfactory.com.ar</a><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Sheryl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gubydala@his.com">gubydala@his.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">Steve Scotten wrote:<br>
<br>
> I'm all for reducing limits on copyright (25-40 years regardless of<br>
> the life of the author sounds reasonable to me), but wholeheartedly<br>
> against the "just scrap it" mentality reformers seem to have.<br>
<br>
</div>The US became a signatory of the Berne Convention (basically "life + 50<br>
years" except for photography and movies)in the late 80s, so I would think<br>
going back to the shorter copyright terms unlikely.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Sheryl<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
consulting mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:consulting@drupal.org">consulting@drupal.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting" target="_blank">http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>