User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Nitpick: "effectuate?"

Nitpick: "effectuate?"

Posted Feb 5, 2004 22:39 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (subscriber, #1256)
Parent article: Of Copyright Transfers, Slander of Title, and SCO


Is there a real need to use the term "effectuate" in this context? Is it a term of art in the field of law? Couldn't we just say "to effect this transfer ..." (or even "to execute ...")?

Just curious.


(Log in to post comments)

Nitpick: "effectuate?"

Posted Feb 6, 2004 20:02 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

That's a great point. Only you don't take it far enough. If you're really going for maximum understandability and plain speaking, "do" is a fine verb here. There's a grammatical error in the sentence too: the plural pronoun "they" refers to the singular antecedent "transfer." Correcting that, choosing a plainer verb, and keeping the sentence in the singular (which is easier to read than plural), I get:

"There is no ... form for a copyright transfer, so normally it is done by contract."


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds