Nope, you're incorrect. It is certainly possible in the United States to put something in the public domain by dedication. It may not be possible in some
other countries, but in the US, case law supports the right to dedicate something to the public domain.
The CC-Zero waiver is a dedication to the public domain combined with a fallback provision.
> For instance, I could write a book today and do so... and people are probably safe to do what they want with it. Then tomorrow, when I croak, my family still retains copyright for the next 95 years. They might decide that this is their golden ticket, and everyone who continues to publish it would be in trouble (past actions shouldn't be sanctionable... while alive, I essentially gave license to do so).
If you did not grant an actual license with specific terms, then your reusers are SOL. If you did grant a license with specific terms, then your heirs still have to honor those terms. If you dedicated the work to the public domain, then the work is not copyrighted and your heirs can't do anything about it.
Also, copyrights for works created in 1978 or later are not publication+95 (except for works for hire), but life+70.
> Even if something is legitimately within the public domain, the courts (in the US) have at times decided to yank works out back out and give them as gifts to the various big licensing regimes (ASCAP, if I remember correctly).
The only instance of this happening in the US was the URAA (which was not tied to licensing regimes, but to international pressure to "restore" copyright in works published outside the US which had not complied with the pre-1989 notice requirement). It took an act of Congress, by the way.
Contrast this with the EU's early-1990s 20-year retroactive extension of copyrights.