Happily (or unhappily), the law is applied by humans rather than computers, and isn't very susceptible to that sort of thing. Also -- 'being the copyright hold

Happily (or unhappily), the law is applied by humans rather than computers, and isn't very susceptible to that sort of thing. Also -- 'being the copyright holder of a work that infringes copyright' isn't a thing. If I copy Harry Potter, by the act of copying I'm infringing JKR's copyright. That I assigned copyright of any original works I make to X doesn't make X liable to JKR for that instead of me! (I can't assign JKR's copyright to X - I never had it in the first place). (Even if I make a derivative work of Harry Potter without permission - so there will be new copyright which can be assigned to X - that doesn't change anything. It just means that you'd need both JKR's and X's permission to copy it. It wouldn't make X liable to JKR). Not to mention, works doesn't necessarily "belong" to the copyright holder. I may own a painting, but the artist still hold the copyright on it. Wrong's generally aren't about 'belonging', anyway. Most restricted things are acts (e.g. making a copy of a copyrighted work, or communicating it to the public). Possession of an infringing work is usually only a wrong when coupled with e.g. intent to sell. (IANAL)