Re: Warner's "Superman" projects to be sued out of existence?

In article <9gf2v3d0d977rrlt7pds06ov811nr9j3gb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Siegel and Shuster sold all rights forever and ever amen.
> Congress, since then (1976 to be precise), passed a law that
> specifically allows heirs in certain cir***stances to recover
> copyrights which had been transferred during the original
> holder's life.

One of the worst laws ever. If the creator of a property sells it, 
there's no reason in the world his descendants should be able to come 
along decades later and **** everything up this way and take it all 
back-- as if they had anything to do with creating the property in the 
first place.

> Under the law as I understand it (and AINAL and all that),
> Siegel couldn't call a mulligan. His heirs could, however,
> end the arrangement he had agreed to.

And this is why it's an idiotic law. Why should some distant heir have a 
greater right to the property than the original creator himself?