Re: Re: Re: Conde Nast vs. Blackmask (copyright infringement)

Which would give the government the right to exploit the copyright. There's a Takings Clause problem, but, hey, they have the nuclear option.

John Noble
Independent Counsel

At 6:00 PM -0400 4/12/06, Vance R. Koven wrote:
>What about escheat?
>
>On 4/11/06, Steven Jamar <stevenjamar[_at_]gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How about abandonment through non-exploitation and thus it is in the public
>> domain? I think this better than "adverse possession" -- since that would
>> work a change of ownership rather than merely a loss of copyright -- but
>> still very problematic.
>
>
>--
>Vance R. Koven
>Boston, MA USA
>vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com
>
>#############################################################
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
>To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
>To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to
><CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
>Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
>Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
><https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
Received on Thu Apr 13 2006 - 22:45:56 GMT