Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/10/2010 2:09 PM, RJack wrote:
> > "Posted On: September 7, 2009 by David Johnson Good Copyright
> > Registration "Hygiene" Necessary to Obtain Copyright Protection
> > over Revised Versions of Software" 
> > http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html
>
> <http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html>
>  Settlement disagreement leads to copyright ... claims ... The court
> found that SG was entitled to an injunction against copyright
> infringement. ... The injunction, however, would only extend to the
> particular versions of the programs over which the court had proper
> subject matter jurisdiction. The Second Circuit doesn’t allow the
> kind of general prophylactic injunction that other circuits do.
> (Query whether this rule will fall along with the Second Circuit’s
> ruling rejecting the Tasini settlement, when the Supreme Court does
> reverse.) SG’s remedy for other infringements is to register the
> other versions.
>
> Notice that last sentence. As usual, the links posted by the cranks 
> demonstrate against their theories.

Three things Hyman.

1) The link:
<http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2009/04/settlement-disagreement-leads-to.html>
isn't my link
<http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/good_copyright_registration_hy_1.html>

2) Did you notice the future tense in your cite, "... when the Supreme
Court does reverse" ? You got a direct line to Antonin Scalia?
"Assume" will make an *ASS* out of *U* and ME*.

3) The NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. TASINI, 533 U.S. 483 (2001)  decision
concerned *distribution* of established collective works -- not
registration of ongoing derivative works.

So please explain Hyman, WTF are talking about?

"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)