Rjack <[email protected]> writes: >The district court had no jurisdiction because the SFLC's plaintiffs >had no standing...
>The Busybox plaintiffs had no standing to invoke the district court's >jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had no copyrighted works registered >with the Copyright Office. You can invoke semantic gyrations forever >but it won't change a thing -- no registration no standing. Standing in federal cases comes from the constitution, while the copyright registration requirement comes from statute. Two different concepts. You are treating them as one. This is why I suggested that you do a web search for article III standing. But it's OK, you are entitled to your opinion. The suggestion to look up article III standing will be useful to other readers who otherwise might get the wrong idea from your postings. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
