[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
- From: Ron Gustavson <rongusss(at)attbi.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:51:48 -0400
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:53:20 -0700, "Michael A Rolenz"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I agree with you there. The problem is that by calling copyright, patent,
>trademark "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" rather than "holding a CPT", a lot of
>people have begun to think that they have the attributes of real and
>personal property which it does not. Possession of a CPT does not mean
>that you and your heirs hold the rights to it ad infinitum. That's why the
>silver tongued Jack is so persuasive in COngres.
>IN some sense anytime somebody debates this and uses the phrase
>"intellectual property" or lets their opponent use it unchallenged they
>lose the debate.
With Hollywood's emphasis on options--a six year option on someone's
life story; a three year option on a new play--perhaps the SEC is a more
appropriate arbiter of IP rights than the LOC.
______________NO-∞-DO_____________
7607 6FA2 6485 3707 42D1 99AD 7E20 52FD