RJack wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > > > > It is possible that the court will decide it does not have > > subject-matter jurisdiction over the versions which the defendants > > are copying and distributing because those versions are not > > registered. > > That is no longer good law. It is now a claim processing requirement. > http://www.pattishall.com/pdf/3-9-10%20Reed%20v%20Elsevier%20v%20Munchink%20Blog%20Post.pdf
In essense, a plaintiff without a registration will still lose, just for different reasons. http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/03/03/supreme-court-clarifies-basis-for-why-copyright-suits-over-unregistered-works-should-be-dismissed/ "Supreme Court clarifies basis for why copyright suits over unregistered works should be dismissed March 3rd, 2010 By Evan Brown Image via WikipediaSupreme Court overturns Second Circuit, holding that a copyright plaintiffs failure to register the work before filing suit does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, Slip. Op., 559 U.S. ___ (March 2, 2010) [View opinion here] Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a courts power to hear the matter before it. The Constitution sets out the general contours for the federal courts jurisdiction, and Congress enacts statutes that give more detail to this set of powers. Particular statutes can define whether the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over certain types of cases. For example, Congress has declared that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright cases (See 28 U.S.C. 1338). If a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the type of matter before it, it has no power to adjudicate the case. So the question of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is critical. The Supreme Court just decided a case that deals with the scope of subject matter jurisdiction in copyright cases, and clarifies a notion that has been the subject of some uncertainty. The question the court decided was whether a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a copyright case when a work at issue is not the subject of a copyright registration. Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act (at 17 U.S.C. 411(a)) provides, among other things, that no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until . . . registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. Some courts have held, and many litigants have argued, that this provision of Section 411 is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Said another way, some have argued that if the copyright plaintiff files suit without having secured a registration, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction over the case. In the case of Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, however, the Supreme Court held that Section 411 does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, but instead merely provides a claim-processing rule, akin to an element of the case. The lower court proceedings [...] The courts holding It is worth noting that this case does not address the bothersome question of whether Section 411 requires that a copyright plaintiff actually have a registration certificate in hand before filing the complaint, or whether he or she simply needs to have the application on file. The case also does not stand for the proposition that one can pursue copyright infringement litigation without having registered his or her copyright. A plaintiff without a registration will still lose, just for different reasons. [...] What does it mean? The case actually addresses a rather nuanced point of copyright law. And the effect of the holding will not change the end results of cases brought in the future with the same facts after all, a non-registering plaintiff will still lose either way, now just for a different reason. Motions to dismiss copyright complaints alleging infringement of unregistered works will clearly fall under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim) and not 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction). " regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss