[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden

From: Hadron
Subject: Re: Pee Jay says silence is golden
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:00:06 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)

RJack <> writes:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> 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.
> So where'd the "...  not the actual authors" come from Alan?
>> 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.
> Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... do you mean if I sued you for copyright infringement
> you wouldn't be curious about the work I claim that you copied? Hmmm...
>>>> 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.
> The copyright registration must be filed in the name of the *owner* of
> the copyrighted work.
> See:
> "17 USC § 408. Copyright registration in general
> (a) Registration Permissive. — At any time during the subsistence of the
> first term of copyright in any published or unpublished work in which
> the copyright was secured before January 1, 1978, and during the
> subsistence of any copyright secured on or after that date, the owner of
> copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration
> of the copyright claim by delivering to the Copyright Office the deposit
> specified by this section, together with the application and fee
> specified by sections 409 and 708. Such registration is not a condition
> of copyright protection."
> An *original author* may transfer ownership of the copyrights to his
> work to a new owner but the original author remains the "author" of record.
> See:
> "17 USC § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.
> (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
> original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
> now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
> reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid
> of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following
> categories:..."
> "17 USC § 101 A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment,
> mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
> hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised
> in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect,
> but not including a nonexclusive license."
> The GPL is, of course, a nonexclusive license.
> Sincerely,
> RJack

Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"?

It seems that with every post he contradicts himself.

reply via email to

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