Copyright on Unabomber Manifesto?

Here's an interesting thing to consider. I've noticed that the Unabomber Manifesto, or parts of it, have been springing up at various places on the net. Does the New York Times have a cause of action for copyright infringement?

The New York Times is not, of course, the author of the Manifesto; the Unabomber is. However, in his communication to the FBI requesting publication of the Manifesto, he stated:

     Whoever agrees to publish the material will have exclusive rights to
     reproduce it for a period of six months and will be welcome to any
     profits they may make from it. After six months from the first
     appearance of the article or book it must become public property, so
     that anyone can reproduce or publish it. (If material is serialized,
     first installment become public property six months after appearance
     of first installment, second installment etc.)

At the bottom of the letter was the Unabomber's mark, "FC," which I think can be treated as a signature.

I would read this as 1) an exclusive license of the work limited in time of effect, thereby meeting the definition of "transfer of copyright ownership" in section 101.

I also think that the letter to the FBI probably meets the requirements of section 204: there's a note in writing, signed by the owner. In the absence of a definition of "signed" in the copyright code, I'm relying on other laws' treatment of signatures, which generally includes any mark intended by the marker to authenticate the writing, which would include the "FC."

Comments?

--
Terry Carroll       | 
Santa Clara, CA     |            Go Cleveland Indians:
carrollt[_at_]netcom.com |      A.L Central Division Champions!
carroll[_at_]aimnet.com  |                    92-41