RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS

["Chris Moseng" <underwhelm_org(at)hotmail.com>]

>From: Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
>Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS
>Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:55:45 -0800
>
>I don't know.  Mickey Mouse on _anything_ pretty much
>identifies it as a Disney product to me.  He is perhaps
>not their _only_ identifying mark, but he certainly is
>_an_ identifying mark.  Is there a restriction that a
>company can have only one ?

Speaking of Disney: I have made a recent acquaintence who's a big fan of 
Disney, and she pointed something out to me: Disney movies frequently don't 
have the "copyright year" (we're accustomed to seeing on everything) printed 
on the box, or even associated with the movie. She reports she was at 
Blockbuster and even in the upcoming releases catalog the Disney flicks 
didn't have years printed next to them.

When the time finally comes, will anyone be able to provide evidence that 
the copyright has expired, since corporate copyright exceeds most people's 
lifetimes? Is Disney trying to obfuscate the copyright duration through 
social engineering? Or is there another possible explanation?



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com