On 2/10/2010 3:29 PM, RJack wrote:
1) The link: <http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html> isn't my link <http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html>
But they are discussing the same case.
2) Did you notice the future tense in your cite, "... when the Supreme Court does reverse" ?
Yes. That refers to "The Second Circuit doesn’t allow the kind of general prophylactic injunction that other circuits do." It does not refer to "SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register the other versions."
3) The NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) decision concerned *distribution* of established collective works -- not registration of ongoing derivative works.
Again, that does not refer to "SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register the other versions."
So please explain Hyman, WTF are talking about?
As my cite states, the court found that SG was entitled to an injunction against copyright infringement for those versions of its work that it had registered. If it wanted injunctions for infringement against the other versions, it could get those by first registering those versions and then filing a claim. This applies tp GPLed programs in the same way. Even if a court chooses to enjoin only registered versions of GPLed programs from being copied and distributed unless the GPL is honored, the remedy for a copyright holder is simply to register the version so being copied and distributed and then file for injunction. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss