As per the subject line, Canada is now in lock-step with the US on the
length of copyright. Just last week, it was extended to 70 years (from
50 years) after the death of the author.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-extends-copyright-protection-another-20-years-to-meet-new-trade-obligation-1.6215102

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> As per the subject line, Canada is now in lock-step with the US on the
> length of copyright. Just last week, it was extended to 70 years (from
> 50 years) after the death of the author.
>
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-extends-copyright-protection-another-20-years-to-meet-new-trade-obligation-1.6215102

The problem here is that the Constitution specifically says copyright can
only last for a "limited time", and while it's true that any given
statutory term is a limited time, if Congress keeps extending it every time
Mickey Mouse is in danger of becoming public domain, then it essentially
becomes perpetual rather than limited. Which is an end-run around the
Constitution that the courts have so far unfortunately been cool with.

On 1/2/2023 11:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> As per the subject line, Canada is now in lock-step with the US on the
>> length of copyright. Just last week, it was extended to 70 years (from
>> 50 years) after the death of the author.
>>
>> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-extends-copyright-protection-another-20-years-to-meet-new-trade-obligation-1.6215102
>
> The problem here is that the Constitution specifically says copyright can
> only last for a "limited time", and while it's true that any given
> statutory term is a limited time, if Congress keeps extending it every time
> Mickey Mouse is in danger of becoming public domain, then it essentially
> becomes perpetual rather than limited. Which is an end-run around the
> Constitution that the courts have so far unfortunately been cool with.

It's a little surprising that patents haven't made the same stifling
concessions to moneyed interests.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>As per the subject line, Canada is now in lock-step with the US on the
>>length of copyright. Just last week, it was extended to 70 years (from
>>50 years) after the death of the author.

>>https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-extends-copyright-protection-another-20-years-to-meet-new-trade-obligation-1.6215102

>The problem here is that the Constitution specifically says copyright can
>only last for a "limited time", and while it's true that any given
>statutory term is a limited time, if Congress keeps extending it every time
>Mickey Mouse is in danger of becoming public domain, then it essentially
>becomes perpetual rather than limited. Which is an end-run around the
>Constitution that the courts have so far unfortunately been cool with.

John Roberts! Corporate interests always prevail.

Funny how copyrights lasting two decades in the era in which the
constitution was new, so we knew what was meant by "limited", holds no
sway with Roberts.

In article <trnptt$2e16c$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >>As per the subject line, Canada is now in lock-step with the US on the
> >>length of copyright. Just last week, it was extended to 70 years (from
> >>50 years) after the death of the author.
>
> >>https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-extends-copyright-protection-another-
> >>20-years-to-meet-new-trade-obligation-1.6215102
>
> >The problem here is that the Constitution specifically says copyright can
> >only last for a "limited time", and while it's true that any given
> >statutory term is a limited time, if Congress keeps extending it every time
> >Mickey Mouse is in danger of becoming public domain, then it essentially
> >becomes perpetual rather than limited. Which is an end-run around the
> >Constitution that the courts have so far unfortunately been cool with.
>
> John Roberts! Corporate interests always prevail.
>
> Funny how copyrights lasting two decades in the era in which the
> constitution was new, so we knew what was meant by "limited", holds no
> sway with Roberts.

Yabbut, Roberts is only one vote. This nonsense keeps getting ratified
by Court majorities regardless of who's chief justice or even the
ideological make-up of the Court. It's been going on since at least the
60s. Liberal or conservatives, the one thing they can all seem to agree
on is that Mickey Mouse should never be in the public domain.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>>As per the subject line, Canada is now in lock-step with the US on the
>>>>length of copyright. Just last week, it was extended to 70 years (from
>>>>50 years) after the death of the author.

>>>>https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-extends-copyright-protection-another-20-years-to-meet-new-trade-obligation-1.6215102

>>>The problem here is that the Constitution specifically says copyright can
>>>only last for a "limited time", and while it's true that any given
>>>statutory term is a limited time, if Congress keeps extending it every time
>>>Mickey Mouse is in danger of becoming public domain, then it essentially
>>>becomes perpetual rather than limited. Which is an end-run around the
>>>Constitution that the courts have so far unfortunately been cool with.

>>John Roberts! Corporate interests always prevail.

>>Funny how copyrights lasting two decades in the era in which the
>>constitution was new, so we knew what was meant by "limited", holds no
>>sway with Roberts.

>Yabbut, Roberts is only one vote.

His name is on the opinion in question. I'm spacing out on the name of
the opinion.

>This nonsense keeps getting ratified by Court majorities regardless of
>who's chief justice or even the ideological make-up of the Court. It's
>been going on since at least the 60s. Liberal or conservatives, the one
>thing they can all seem to agree on is that Mickey Mouse should never
b>e in the public domain.

You're right about all this, of course.

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:38:21 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>>As per the subject line, Canada is now in lock-step with the US on the
>>>length of copyright. Just last week, it was extended to 70 years (from
>>>50 years) after the death of the author.
>
>>>https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-extends-copyright-protection-another-20-years-to-meet-new-trade-obligation-1.6215102
>
>>The problem here is that the Constitution specifically says copyright can
>>only last for a "limited time", and while it's true that any given
>>statutory term is a limited time, if Congress keeps extending it every time
>>Mickey Mouse is in danger of becoming public domain, then it essentially
>>becomes perpetual rather than limited. Which is an end-run around the
>>Constitution that the courts have so far unfortunately been cool with.
>
>John Roberts! Corporate interests always prevail.
>
>Funny how copyrights lasting two decades in the era in which the
>constitution was new, so we knew what was meant by "limited", holds no
>sway with Roberts.

You mean as compared to
M-I-C see you next week! K-E-Y why? because we LIKE you! M-O-U-S-E !!!
and the way he and he minions would like it?