From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Mess not with The Mouse
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:20:53 GMT


In article <1992Dec11.152332.23800@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, 
wbrs@binah.cc.brandeis.edu said:

> I have just recently bought a copy of the movie ["Litte Mermaid"] in
> New York.  I don't think it was an original, in fact I am quite sure
> it is a bootleg copy off some laserdisc.

Appropos of this (though not necessarily appropriate fodder for
alt.disney.afternoon but where the heck _else_ does it fit in any
better?) I'll mention that the Honorable William G. Young, a federal
judge, yesterday held a motion session of his court (U.S. District
Court, District of Massachusetts) at the Moot Courtroom here at
Northeastern Law... moot courtrooms at law schools and elsewhere are
usually used for mock courtroom activities and exercises, but on
occasion a real judge will use it for real court activity (generally
business that only requires the presence of lawyers, like motion
sessions), taking his show to one to make it more accessible to law
students and the like.  Anyway, the point of all this babbling is that
the first case on yesterday's docket -- which I had to miss due to
prior engagements -- was, according to the handout that was provided:

RE: _Walt Disney Company, et al., v. John Doe, et al._
    Hearing on Ex Parte Seizure Order Issued 12-2-92.

    This is a copyright and trademark infringement action involving
    the alleged piracy of copyrighted films by the defendants.
    Plaintiffs are motion picture production and distribution
    companies.  Defendants, John Doe or Jane Doe, rent videocassette
    copies of movies for home viewing.  The plaintiffs allege that
    among the videos the defendants rent, there are several
    unauthorized copies of the plaintiffs copyrighted works.  On
    December 2, 1992, this Court granted Plaintiffs' ex parte seizure
    and impoundment motion.  This order came pursuant to section
    303(a) of the Copyright Act.  Today the Court will review the
    motion and hear the defendants to determine if a preliminary
    injunction should be issued.

Legal note from _Barron's Law Dictionary_: "An ex parte judicial
proceeding is one brought for the benefit of one party only, without
notice to or challenge by an adverse party.  It refers to an
application made by one party to a proceeding in the absence of the
other."

In other words, as near as I can tell, when the Disney Company got
wind of the presence of these allegedly counterfeit copies of their
movies in this video rental outlet, in addition to filing whatever
other legal papers they may have conjured up they also went to federal
court and asked for and got a court order seizing the copies
immediately, even before the other side -- the owners of the rental
outlet -- was officially notified that anything was going on.  Now,
twelve days later (though only eight business days later), the other
side, having had some of its property already seized, is finally
getting its turn to challenge that action.

Final note: to the best of my personal knowledge, there is no truth to
the rumor that Disney breeds its own in-house lawyers in secret vats
hidden below the Epcot Center (right next to Walt's cryogenic chamber
:-), using genetic material obtained from sharks, leeches and pit
bulls.  But you never know...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky alt.fan.disney.afternoon:252 alt.heraldry.sca:122 alt.horror.cthulhu:980 alt.horror.werewolves:228 alt.music.filk:3714 alt.pulp:212 alt.ql.creative:1 alt.french.captain.borg.borg.borg:9 alt.startrek.creative:2758