RE: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

There may be other solutions, at least in the case
of Disney and Mickey Mouse.  Trademark comes to mind.
That might not handle all of the cases you have in 
mind, but it seems to fit that one particular case.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ballowe, Charles [mailto:CBallowe@usg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:55 AM
> To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
> 
> 
> Agreed -- but if a company (Disney?) still wishes to hold rights to
> something, wouldn't letting them do so and requiring a fee based on
> sales be potentially useful, particularly if that fee went directly
> into a program promoting arts and and science in schools? I'd prefer 
> copyright to be short, but if that's not going to happen, the people
> should receive something to help promote the arts.
> 
> -Charles Ballowe
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Must Copyright terms be uniform?
> > 
> > Which of course invalidates the whole point of "promoting 
> progress" --
> > if only the unvaluable works enter the public domain, then 
> > the public's
> > benefit and reason for providing the monopoly in the first 
> > place.  Works
> > must still be contemporary, relevant, and valuable when 
> they enter the
> > public domain, or the constitutional mandate of "promoting 
> > progress" is
> > not met, and the term of the copyright is unconstitutional.
> > 
> > .002
> > 
>