[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:47:12 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is
>> the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to
>> sue, not the actual authors.

> Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan?

Here on this mailing list in your articles.  I think you have written
often enough that before a USA copyright holder can enforce his
copyright, he needs to have registered it.  The other side of that coin
is that it is the registered copyright holder who can sue.

>> The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge that 
>> copyright registration should they wish.

> The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration.

Wierd.  Why do they have this standing?  It would appear to be none of
their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner.

>> It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in shouldering
>> the burden of the legal action, is simply seeking to enforce the
>> license busybox is released under, to which all the authors have
>> assented.

So, tell me please Rj, under USA law is it the registered copyright
holder or the authors of a work who have standing to sue in a copyright
dispute?  My understanding of your posts is that it is the registered
copyright holder.  Would you please clarify.

> Sincerely,
> RJack

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]