LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 6 Nov 2016 18:23:58 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
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-theo
> ries-run-amock-over-copyright-office-executive-changes.shtml

ATOM RSS1 RSS2