Tim Smith wrote: [...] > (I'm assuming statutory damages would be available, because I'm assuming > the copyrights have been registered. I can't find that registration, > but I don't claim to be a good copyright registration searcher. I > assume they have been registered, because if not, every defendant so far > would have filed an answer to the complaint pointing that out, and the
Defentdant to SFLC: Dismiss voluntarily or we'll file an answer and you'll have to pay. SFLC: Okay, okay. Wait a bit. Defentdant to SFLC: This is last warning. Dismiss voluntarily or we'll file an answer and you'll have to pay. SFLC to the World: <files notice of voluntary dismissal> Victory! > court would have immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The > first time, the court would have been amused at the plaintiff > overlooking such a basic thing. But aren't they filling subsequent > suits in the same court? The court is not going to be amused the second > time the same plaintiff brings forth essentially the same case with the > same flaw. We'd be seeing sanctions by now, probably. Thus, I infer > that the copyrights must be registered). The SFLC is a bunch of *copyleft* "lawyers" (not copyright lawyers) with perfect skills of sucking misplaced tax-deductible donations. They are of opinion that http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html "You do not need to register to enforce your copyright." Thus we can infer that the *copyleft* statute of GNU Republic doesn't impose any jurisdictional requirements to enforce copyr^Hlefts. "Registration of copyright in the work that is allegedly infringed is a jurisdictional requirement. 17 U.S.C. § 411. Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)("Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) as well as its predecessor, § 13, it has been held repeatedly that ownership of a copyright registration is a jurisidictional prerequisite to an action for infringement. . . . A complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ subject to dismissal."); Grundberg v. The Upjohn Company, 137 F.R.D. 372, 382; 19 U.S.P.Q. 1590 (D. Ut. 1991). Lacking even an allegation of registration of copyright ... this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. " regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
