Re: thought for the week

On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Peter D. Junger <junger[_at_]samsara.law.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Seth P. Johnson <seth.johnson[_at_]realmeasures.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Copyright" is a misnomer. What's important is authorial rights.
> >
> > It's only a misnomer if you misunderstand it to mean "the right to
> > copy," with copy as a verb. The actual origin of the term refers to
> > the right to the copy, with "copy" as a noun, and used in the sense
> > of the content of the work (a sense that survives in terms like a
> > newspaper's "copy desk" or "copy editor").
>
> Can you cite any authority for that claim?

Not any longer. I know I learned that prior to 1993 but I no longer remember my source.

> All the dictionaries I have looked at define copyright the noun
> as ``the exclusive right to reproduce, publish, and sell the
> work'' or words to that effect.

That's correct, but I was referring to the word's origin, not to its definition.   

> Under the current U.S. Copyright Act, by the way, a ``copy'' is a
> tangible medium of expression -- e.g., a floppy disk or a magnetic
> tape -- in which the copyrighted work is embodied.

Of course, when the word "copyright" attained general use in the 18th century, they didn't have the benefit of the stautory definitions from the 1976 Copyright Act.

-- 
Terry Carroll         |
Santa Clara, CA       |            There are 41 days remaining
carroll[_at_]tjc.com       |
Modell delendus est   |