[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Reporter faked the news.

Of course the NYT has no rights to destroy materials that have been
distributed, but it remains perfectly entitled to destroy the material
that is lawfully in its own possession.


Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Leics LE11 3TU
(fax) 01509-223053

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>
To: "'Charles Oppenheim '" <C.Oppenheim@lboro.ac.uk>;
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 12:19 AM
Subject: RE: Reporter faked the news.

> Lawful distribution, I believe, is the key as to whether the author or
> publisher has future rights of complete destruction. Before you 
> broadcast or distribute it, that's quite different. Publishers and 
> author's certainly have tried to supress what they've published, by 
> destroying or recalling editions with errors, mistakes, changes, etc. 
> However if a single physical copy is acquired lawfully, it is no longer 
> the publisher's or authors or copyright owner's to do with as they 
> please. Should it be different in electronic distribution media?
> Chuck Hamaker
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Oppenheim
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Sent: 5/15/03 6:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Reporter faked the news.
> Surely anyone who owns copyright in a work has the right to destroy that
> copyright work.  They don't owe it to society to maintain it.  There have
> been many cases where famous literary figures have destroyed their own
> drafts or personal notes, or have requested that such documents be
> destroyed on their death.  I shudder to think how one can introduce, let
> alone police a law that required that (say) everything I ever wrote must
> never be destroyed.
> Professor Charles Oppenheim