[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

WOOOOWWWWW....this is getting serious! If the copyright can be 
retroactively extended to Santa Claus then royalities have to paid for every 
shopping season for copyright infringment-some percentage of the sales 
that were generated as a consequence of the infringement. Well...there 
goes the GNP for the next century!  I couldn't care less about Mickey Mouse 
but Santa Claus? While as an adult I know there is no Tooth Fairy or Easter 
Bunny but no Santa Claus! Who could doubt that he exists on Christmas 

All    :-) and hehe     aside....that's a good observation. "Be careful what you 
ask for. You just might get it." Maybe Golan v Ashcroft may want to make 
that point about retroactive copyrights.

Date sent:      	Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:21:16 -0500 (EST)
From:           	Scott A Crosby <crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu>
To:             	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Copies to:      	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted 
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > Perversion it may be, and yet, it would cover the DisneyCo's
> > concerns re. "The Mouse" without having to go to the even
> > greater perversion of infinite extension of copyright, which
> > is what they have to pursue right now.
> >
> Sure, They can trademark one or several images.. For example, the ears or
> a single sillouette, or whatever.
> > Which then is the lesser of two evils?  Stretching trademark
> > protection over the image of a cartoon character who is very
> > strongly identified with the owning corporation, or playing
> > the "copyright lasts as long as we say it lasts" game?
> Neither.. Walt Disney knew what he wsa getting into when he started
> playing the game. This is just changing the rules after the fact.
> (BTW, what right does disney have *at all* to Mickey Mouse nowadays? Why
> must any 'solution' seem to require that there's some exception that
> allows Disney to control Mickey Mouse forever?
> Why is Mickey Mouse infinitely more important than Santa Clause, seemingly
> even for us? Both are a fundamental part of our culture, except out
> culture never did get Mickey Mouse in 42 years, as promised.
> (I'm trying to imagine Santa under the current copyright regime... He'd
> have been copyrighted until I was 4 years old. (I believe Thomas Nast died
> in 1906.)
> Scott