----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
> Bob Olhsson wrote:
>> This issue has been grossly mischaracterized.
>> All of these so-called extensions, including the Bono act, have been for
>> purpose of bringing each country's copyright term in line with all of the
> The Bono act brought a 70 year term -- already longer than any other term
> in the world -- to a 90 year term. So how can you include the Bono act in
> the category of : "the purpose of bringing each country's copyright term
> in line with all of the others."? The express purpose of the law was to
> make it longer than any other country with the hope that the other
> lemmings would follow. The others might now be emulating the Bono time
> length, but what was Bono emulating?
We don't freakin' KNOW...! However, I suspect this was hand-tailored
by/for the US recording industry...so their current "content-free" content
didn't have to compete with any older recordings for the next 50.08
years (subject to future change, of course...?!) In fact, if I record a US
78 onto cassette as a favour for some hapless party, I am violating the
copyright laws of the US of A...and thus subject to the "attention"
of Dubya's "Department Of Homeland Security" (which STILL, to me,
sounds like an English translation of one of Herr Hitler's operations...?!).
Actually, about 99.99% (membership of 78-L exempted, of course...?!)
of the population would only listen to a 50+ year old recording at gun-
point...and the .01% otherwise are only that numerous because we
old f...ogies are increasing in number in the new century!
We shall see when/if HMV releases a "greatest hits of 1910" to
take advantage of their newly-acquired rights...?!
And then we run into "challenge #2"...?! Presumably, if Joe
Gabroni sells a reissue CD, and CBS/Sony/Everybody files
suit, all he need do is testify that he recorded the 78's in
question back in 2008 or earlier, when they WERE p.d....?!