cwbrown

Hey Drew, don't stress about it too much. If you had it, I was just curious about the wording. Since you don't have it, no worries. I am quite aware we've been overtalking this for more than a year.

I just wanted to add one "legalese" thing here. Unless the statute is really weird (can you send me the cite, Drew?), the statute starts to run when a person knew, or should have known. This statement of law is actually a common law interpretation of any SOL. Most statutes of limitation say that a "claim is barred after x years". No mention of any delay. The courts, out of fairness, adopted the "known or should have known" doctrine. It's also a legal question, not a a factual question. Finally, there's also the possibility that there is a statue of repose (although I doubt it). That statute is one where a claim would be barred after a certain period, no matter what. So, for the same claim there may be a statute of limitation for 2 years, and a statute of repose of 10 years. So, at 5 years after a particular injury (of someone who may not have known, and shouldn't have known), the suit can still be brought because the SOL starts to run at discovery, and the SOR hasn't run yet. The same person making the discovery at 15 years, would have no legal recourse. Now, I doubt there is much question that a licensed, released item fits within the "should have known" category. So, it's possible that the SOL had run on HG. I make no comment on any other part of Drew's arguments.

Both. Both. Both. How else can you be a LOTR fan than to get both? And the extended version has already been announced for release on November 18. The Gift Box has a Gollum statue in it this time around. And I'll probably even get the oversized complete 80 disc set that gets released after Return of the King gets its double treatment.