Re: A Little Linguistic Playground

From: Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:07:50 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Thomas Workman <tworkman[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
>
> That statement is true. But you still miss the point. The law
> specifies how a work obtains a copyright. When those conditions
> are met, the copyright attaches. Anything you do or say does not
> "override" the law, unless the law provides a specific mechanism
> for undoing what it has done. The statutes provide no mechanism
> for destroying the copyright, except for the passage of the
> requisite time, or of course a subsequent law.

IIRC, the original poster wanted to invent a catchy new phrase for use by the -copyright owner-, to indicate the deliberate release of their own work into the public domain. They can legally do that, yes?

Lance Purple
<lpurple[_at_]netcom.com>

..----------------------------.

| lpurple at netcom dot com |

'----------------------------'

Received on Sat Mar 20 1999 - 23:10:46 GMT