Definition
The act of committing something to memory. In law, the term carries a specific technical meaning in the context of copyright and intellectual property: the act by which a person attends a public performance of a dramatic or literary work and then, relying on recollection rather than any written copy, reproduces the work substantially or in part without the author's authorization. The legal question raised by memorization was whether such reproduction constituted actionable infringement or piracy, given the absence of any physical copying in the traditional sense.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The act of committing something to memory or memorizing.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not separately defined; the concept is captured under "memorize" — to cause to be remembered; to record; also, to learn by heart.
The common meaning and legal meaning share an identical cognitive act — retaining information mentally — but diverge sharply in purpose and consequence. In legal usage, memorization is not a neutral cognitive achievement; it is a mechanism of potential infringement. The legal question was whether the mental act of retaining a dramatic work and then reproducing it could substitute for physical copying in establishing a copyright violation.
Common Confusion
Memorization as a legal concept is sometimes conflated with ordinary piracy or literary theft, which typically involved printed copies, manuscripts, or transcriptions made during performance (so-called "shorthand piracy"). The memorization question was distinct: the reproducer used no notes, no shorthand, and no written aid — only unaided recollection. Whether this qualified as infringement under early copyright law was genuinely contested. Bouvier states flatly that no action would lie for pirating a play by memorization alone, which places it outside the scope of actionable copying as courts then understood it. Researchers should not assume the modern, expansive understanding of reproduction rights applies retroactively to this doctrine.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a historical artifact of early copyright doctrine and will appear almost exclusively in nineteenth-century sources dealing with dramatic rights, theatrical piracy, and the limits of an author's proprietary interest in a performed work. Researchers should be aware of several navigational points:
First, the doctrine was shaped by the gap between copyright as a right against copying in the print sense and the much broader modern right of reproduction. Courts and commentators of the period were working out whether mental reproduction — with no tangible intermediate — could constitute infringement.
Second, the references in both editions of Black's to 5 Term R. 245 point to Macklin v. Richardson (1770), an early English case on theatrical copyright; this is the foundational authority behind the doctrine as stated. The 14 American Law Register (N.S.) 207 reference (a note by J. A. Morgan) is the principal American commentary synthesizing the English doctrine for a U.S. audience.
Third, Bouvier's phrasing — "no action will lie for pirating a play by means of memorization alone" — reflects the state of law before statutory copyright protections were broadened. Modern copyright law does not preserve this limitation; the right of reproduction now encompasses a far wider range of acts. A researcher encountering "memorization" in a historical brief or treatise should understand it as a term of art bounded by that earlier, narrower framework.
Fourth, Anderson's entry is unhelpfully corrupt in the digitized source, cross-referencing drama without reproducing usable content. Researchers should rely on Black's and Bouvier's for substantive treatment.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's (1st and 2nd editions) are in close agreement, defining memorization as the act of listening to a dramatic performance and reproducing it from recollection, in derogation of the author's rights. Both editions treat the term descriptively rather than definitively, stopping short of declaring whether such conduct was or was not actionable.
Bouvier takes the more definitive position: no action lies. This reflects Bouvier's characteristic willingness to state the rule plainly rather than merely describe the conduct. The difference in posture between Black's and Bouvier's is meaningful for researchers — Black's frames memorization as a category of infringing act to be analyzed; Bouvier frames it as a category of conduct that falls outside relief.
Neither dictionary engages with how memorization doctrine would interact with subsequent statutory developments in American copyright law, an expected gap given their publication dates. Both sources treat the English authorities as controlling, which reflects the state of American copyright jurisprudence at the time.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Copyright — Dramatic Works and Theatrical Rights; Literary Property and Common Law Copyright.