From: Winston Tabb <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 04:09:22 +0000

The choice was for "limited times," a concept that has been completely
eroded via the Bono extension

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 18:29:45 -0600

Well, actually, the US chose an approach that uses economic incentives
to achieve the public good of promoting the arts and sciences, so it
is not a question of "balance" between the two: one is a means to the
other.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Winston Tabb <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 03:55:59 +0000
>
> Is copyright about commerce, or the public good, or a balance between
> the two?  Which agency is most likely to support the Constitutional
> imperative that copyright is intended "To promote the Progress of
> Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
> Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
> Discoveries"?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:51:21 -0400
>
> It's good that the temperature on this debate is dropping, but I don't
> see the underlying issue being engaged: Isn't Pallante correct that
> the Copyright Office belongs elsewhere, preferably in the Department
> of Commerce? It sounds like Hayden is protecting her turf, as most
> people would want to do, but the substantive issue here is still not
> being addressed.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:42 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 20:31:12 -0400
>>
>>  Here's a fresh posting that outlines a sensible interpretation of
>> the  developments at LC.
>>
>>
>> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161031/16531435930/conspiracy-the
>> o  ries-run-amock-over-copyright-office-executive-changes.shtml