Time: Fri Dec 12 05:08:08 1997
To: "Fredrick Rea O'Keefe" <fredrick@tech-center.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Common Law Copyright
Bcc: sls

Black's Law Dictionary has been corrupted
by bar members.  20,000 words were changed
between the Fifth and Sixth editions.

What is a "person"?  I believe it usually
refers to federal citizens and other
artificial entities.  Federal citizenship
is a municipal franchise issued by Congress
acting in its municipal capacity.

I am a "Person", not a "person".  

The common law is a term which has a 
permanent meaning, via the Seventh Amendment.

Only the several States have the power to
change that meaning.  Until they do, it
retains the meaning it had when it was
first enacted into the supreme Law.

For authority, see Eisner v. Macomber,
and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

For more backup, read "Esquires" in the
Supreme Law Library.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 04:19 PM 12/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Then how do you explain this???
>: Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition
>Common law copyright -- Authors' proprietary interest in his creation before
>it has been published. An intangible, incorporeal right in an author of
>literary or artistic productions to reproduce and sell them exclusively and
>arises at the moment of their creation as distinguished from federal or
>statutory copyrights which exist for the most part only in published works.
>Common law copyright is perpetual while statutory copyright is for term of
>years. Equitable relief is available for violation of common law copyright.
>Edgar H. Wood Associates Inc. v. Skene, 347 Mass. 351, 197 N.E.2d 886. [This
>refers to what common law copyright had been, prior to the new law. Rick
>The distinction which formerly existed between common law copyrights and
>statutory copyrights was abolished by the 1976 Copyright Act revision;
>though  301 of the new Act specifically preserves common law copyrights
>accruing prior to January 1, 1978. See also Copyright.
>(a) On and after January 1, 1978, *all legal or equitable rights that are
>equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of
>copyright as specified by section 106*  in works of authorship that are
>fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject
>matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, *whether
>created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished,
>are governed exclusively by this title.  Thereafter, no person is
>entitled to any such right or equivalent in any such work under the
>common law or statutes of any State.*  (emphasis added)
>301(f)(2) preserves rights and remedies under common law or state
>statutes only in 3 specific situations: where the violations are of
>rights *not* equivalent to any of the '78 statutory rights;  where the
>cause of action arises from  "undertakings commenced before the
>effective date" of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990; and where the
>violation is of legal or equitable rights which extend beyond the life
>of the author.
>Common law copyright was intentionally absorbed into the statutory
>Thanks for the above goes to:
>Karen B.
>Leave it to lawyers to clarify matters beyond any possible misunderstanding.
>Fredrick Rea O'Keefe ("Rick")
>Copyright (c) 1997, all rights reserved.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>To: Fredrick Rea O'Keefe <fredrick@tech-center.com>
>Date: Thursday, December 11, 1997 5:01 AM
>Subject: SLS: Common Law Copyright???
>>Congress cannot abolish the common law,
>>because it is a term recognized by the
>>Seventh Amendment.  See Eisner v. Macomber:
>At least one state has abolished common law, Michigan, I believe.
>>"Congress cannot by legislation alter the
>> Constitution, from which alone it derives
>> its power to legislate, and within whose
>> limitations that power can be lawfully
>> exercised."
>>It is possible Congress could abolish it
>>for the federal zone, under the Downes
>>Doctrine, but this doctrine has now been
>>attacked in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF,
>>now loaded in the Supreme Law Library
>>at the URL just below my name here:
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell,
>>Candidate for Congress
>>At 11:30 PM 12/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Since CLC was abolished (subsumed under statute law by Congress in 1976,
>>effective 1/1/78), what prompts you to list your web page as having CLC? I
>>ask as a writer who is discussing CLC vs copyright registration with a
>>writers group.
>>>Fredrick Rea O'Keefe ("Rick")
>>>Copyright (c) 1997, all rights reserved.
>>>Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\CommonLa"
>>>Attachment Converted: "I:\ATTACH\CommonLa.gif"
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
>>B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
>>tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
>>email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
>>website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
>>             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
>>             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
>>_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
>>======================================================================== 12
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail