有限的时间:重新思考版权保护的界限

IF 2.5 2区社会学 Q1 Social Sciences

University of Pennsylvania Law Review Pub Date : 2006-01-01 DOI:10.2307/40041282

Kevin A. Goldman

{"title":"有限的时间:重新思考版权保护的界限","authors":"Kevin A. Goldman","doi":"10.2307/40041282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"No one born in the last eighty years has seen an original work created in her lifetime fall into the public domain. Each time the term of copyright protection has been due to expire, Congress has passed another extension. This has led some scholars to suggest that Congress is effectively granting these works a perpetual copyright, in violation of the Constitution’s requirement that such protection only be granted for “limited Times.” Although the Supreme Court has re-","PeriodicalId":48012,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","volume":"154 1","pages":"705"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40041282","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limited Times: Rethinking the Bounds of Copyright Protection\",\"authors\":\"Kevin A. Goldman\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/40041282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"No one born in the last eighty years has seen an original work created in her lifetime fall into the public domain. Each time the term of copyright protection has been due to expire, Congress has passed another extension. This has led some scholars to suggest that Congress is effectively granting these works a perpetual copyright, in violation of the Constitution’s requirement that such protection only be granted for “limited Times.” Although the Supreme Court has re-\",\"PeriodicalId\":48012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania Law Review\",\"volume\":\"154 1\",\"pages\":\"705\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40041282\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/40041282\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40041282","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去的八十年里，没有一个人在有生之年看到自己创作的原创作品进入公共领域。每次版权保护期到期，国会都会通过另一次延期。这导致一些学者认为，国会实际上是在授予这些作品永久版权，这违反了宪法规定的这种保护只能在“有限时间”内授予的规定。尽管最高法院已经重新

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Limited Times: Rethinking the Bounds of Copyright Protection

No one born in the last eighty years has seen an original work created in her lifetime fall into the public domain. Each time the term of copyright protection has been due to expire, Congress has passed another extension. This has led some scholars to suggest that Congress is effectively granting these works a perpetual copyright, in violation of the Constitution’s requirement that such protection only be granted for “limited Times.” Although the Supreme Court has re-

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

University of Pennsylvania Law Review LAW-

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量