Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds
> copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants
> are copying and distributing it without permission.

http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/

Larry Rosen correctly noted:

"Under US copyright law, only “the legal or beneficial owner of an
exclusive right is entitled ... to institute an action for any
infringement of that particular right...” 17 USC 501. So if all you have
is a non-exclusive license, or indeed if all you have is joint
ownership, you cannot enforce that copyright in court without the other
owners joining in. "

At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for
consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in
which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined
by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as
busybox at http://busybox.net/.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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.)