@pwalker8. I'm sorry to say so, but your posts display a fundamental misunderstanding of this area. For example:
Quote:
17 U.S. Code § 201 - Ownership of copyright
(a)Initial Ownership.—
Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work.
|
Quote:
17 U.S. Code § 205 - Recordation of transfers and other documents
(a)Conditions for Recordation.—
Any transfer of copyright ownership or other document pertaining to a copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office if the document filed for recordation bears the actual signature of the person who executed it, or if it is accompanied by a sworn or official certification that it is a true copy of the original, signed document. A sworn or official certification may be submitted to the Copyright Office electronically, pursuant to regulations established by the Register of Copyrights.
|
Many of the surrounding sections in the Copyright Act in the US code make the situation very clear.
At least in the US as provided by the Constitution and discussed previously, Copyright is clearly not a legal construct between the owners and the government. So far as books are concerned, it is designed to promote the writing of more books by giving the author a statutory monopoly for a limited period. Any benefit to the author is incidental to this.
So far as contract law being mainly common law, this is simply not true. The basics of contract law derive from the Common law, but much of contract law is governed by legislation, particularly in the US which extensively codifies many of its laws. Even if you were correct, common law is not a free for all as you imply. Judges are bound by precedent which ensures some consistency, particularly given there is an appeals process, and few judges like to be overruled by a higher court.