CW wrote:
If there is, it's routinely ignored.
"lgb" wrote in message
...

Constitution about post facto laws?



It's not ignored, like 'legal tender' it simply does not mean what
many people think it means. 'Ex post facto' and retroactive, for
example, are not the same same thing.

It _may_ be that the copyrights, once relenquished as described,
were NOT restored in 1977 or whenever the law was changed to conform
to the Berne Conventions. I dunno about that.

--

FF