Why?

[Peter Fairbrother]

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:

> Can we assume he means the right to terminate a license under certain
> conditions?  17 U.S.C. § 203.  This is an oft-confused issue.  /Larry

I _think_ he's answering the question "Can abandonment be irrevocable?",
which I asked a while ago. Assuming a PDD is abandoning the copyright,
rather than than assigning it to the "commons" or whoever.

There was a US concept of abandonment of copyright, from the days when
copyright had to be registered and renewed etc., though it doesn't apply in
eg the UK. But that is a bit dicy nowadays, and it was never clear (at least
in my research) that anything more than the temporary loss of the right to
claim ownership of copyright was lost.

The real problem is of course that copyright is a statutory right and like
all statutory rights cannot be abandoned, but must be divested.


-- 
Peter Fairbrother


>>John Cowan:
>> : Rick Moen scripsit:

>> : > It should be pointed out that a "public domain declaration" would _not_
>> : > be a licence, but rather an attempt to nullify copyright title (which
>> : > may or may not work, and may have differing results depending on
>> : > jurisdiction).

>> : In any case, the right to recapture the copyright under U.S. law is
>> : not alienable.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3