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

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

I forgot to put the ;-) afterwards

I'm beginning to agree with .002 that there is a whole group of people who 
believe that the public domain should not exist and that the creations of 
dead people are more important than the ability of living people to 
create....and these people have been busy the last 30 yrs.

Given that Congress retroactively extended copyright to foreign films that 
were in the public domain for failure to satisfy copyright requirements, 
well after any statute of limitations expired, securing the copyright on 
Mickey probably won't be much of a stretch. If nothing else, Disney will 
argue that the public and Disney has acted as if Mickey were copyrighted 
and THEREFORE it is (how's that for a twisted estoppel argument).




John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
02/20/02 10:29 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS




Did I miss something here?  What does the case for the copyright poster 
child not even being copyrighted (that is, in the PD) have to do with 
whether the public domain exists?

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:

>Well obviously the problem is that the public domain should not exist and 

>copyrights should be held by dead people! Now if we can just get Miss 
Cleo 
>to act as our interpreter all the problems will be solved!
>
>
>Date sent:                      Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:14:28 -0700 (MST)
>From:                           John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>
>To:                             openlaw decss 
<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>Subject:                        Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft 
Accepted 
>forReviewbySCOTUS
>Send reply to:                  dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>
>> 
>> Think of Disney.  I submit to you that Mickey Mouse's copyright expired 

>> when Roy and Walt failed to affix notice on the 1929 MMC materials, and 

>> again in 1956, when the "Mickey Mouse in Plane Crazy" copyright was not 

>> renewed (the soundie, "Plane Crazy" was separately copyrighted as a 
>> published work, MMIPC was copyrighted as an unpublished work)
>> 
>> Take a look at the VanPelt paper for details...
>> 
>> http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/publicdomain/Vanpelt-s99.html
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, John Zulauf wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >Think of Disney -- all in a panic about losing the exclusive rights to
>> >Mickey Mouse.  This tends to indicate that they fear they have nothing
>> >of equal prestige with which to replace him.  Being given yet another 
20
>> >year reprieve, there is nothing to motivate Disney to create yet 
another
>> >marquee character.  They can simply rest on there legally preserved
>> >laurels. 
>> >
>> 
>> -- 
>> Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!
>> 
>> Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu
>> 
>
>

-- 
Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu