Re: A Little Linguistic Playground

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.

There is no provision in the statute that contradicts the basic tenet of property law that gives a property owner the right to destroy his property. The term of art in copyright is "abandonment" rather than "destruction," but the basic idea is there. See the Duncan case that was cited earlier.

> I know of no cases on point,

Nor are you likely to find any; not because abandonment is not possible, but because if a work's copyright is in fact (intentionally) abandoned, the former copyright owner is not likely to seek enforcement of the now-abandoned copyright. In the cases on abandonment, the copyright owner pretty clearly did not have an intent to abandon (a necessary element of abandonment, as distinguished from forfeiture), and the abandonment argument is usually a weak argument brought by the defendant. Where there is a true abandonment, there won't be any case brought, precisely because the former copyright owner intentionally destroyed the copyright.

-- 
Terry Carroll       | "Report of the Committee On Governmental Affairs,
Santa Clara, CA     | United States Senate, To Accompany S. 1364, An Act To
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     | Eliminate Unnecessary and Wasteful Federal Reports."
Modell delendus est |  - Title of U.S. Senate Report 105-187, May 11, 1998