RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

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

The thing is that in many of these cases it is less
of a matter of intentionally blocking use of the 
property as it is just ignoring it.  Truely "abandoned
property" as the msg I was responding to suggested.
Should there not be a difference between intentional
suppression and mere indifference?

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

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. C. Sessions [mailto:dcs@lumbercartel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 7:38 AM
> To: DVD-Discuss
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 09:39, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> > Now we're talking games like the original Space Invaders, 
> Gorf, Donkey
> > Kong, etc.  When was the last time you saw one of these in a modern
> > arcade?  These properties _are_ abandoned IP.  It would be 
> interesting
> > if one of these groups sued the owner of the copyright for 
> one of these
> > properties for the right to distribute it.  A "s**t or get off the
> > pot" suit, as it were.  (I wonder if the EFF would be interested in
> > that sort of thing ...)
> 
> Not going to happen without legislation.  Currently, there is
> quite a bit of case law supporting copyright holders who use
> copyright exclusively to block publication (Scientology, some
> other religious groups, and record companies who keep artists
> from performing until they finish their eight-record contract.)
> 
> I hope that you wouldn't be too surprised to see that there is
> a huge amount of money in favor of keeping it that way.
> 
> -- 
> | May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
> |  the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the   |
> |    cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way.     |
> +------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -----------+
> 
>