-
is not an “enemy.” Not even an American marine could fight it. Yet, as I looked
Hi
-
he
-
chair, proud of his bold resolve, sipping a bit too much of the wildly too
Dtddhdtbdgbdg hi
-
the future … this interactivity with the albums. Treat it more like a game
Yo
-
U.S. copyright law was technical, inconsistent, and difficult to understand, but it didn’t apply to very many people or very many things. If one were an author or publisher of books, maps, charts, paintings, sculpture, photographs or sheet music, a playwright or producer of plays, or a printer, the copyright law bore on one’s business. Booksellers, piano-roll and phonograph record publishers, motion picture producers, musicians, scholars, members of Congress, and ordinary consumers could go about their business without ever encountering a copyright problem.
Test
-
already described, even that change was not intended to widen the real scope of the law. And in any case, as Lyman Ray Patterson has argued, that change most likely was an error in drafting.10 Nonetheless, after 1909, the law reached beyond the particular acts that Congress regulated. The law would reach as far as the technology for “copying
Test
-
In 1909, the law was changed to refer to “copies.”9 Yet, as I’ve already described, even that change was not intended to widen the real scope of the law. And in any case, as Lyman Ray Patterson has argued, that change most likely was an error in drafting.10 Nonetheless, after 1909, the law reached beyond the particular acts that Congress regulated. The law would reach as far as the technology for “copying” would reach.
The effect of this change in technology was to change radically the scope of copyright law. In 1909, writes Jessica Litman,
Too many notes over time
-
If copyright regulates copies, and copying is as common as breathing, then a law that triggers federal regulation on copying is a law that regulates too far.
Whoa
-
from
Hg catch htvtcmgt
