Re: Justice draws nigh

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 5/15/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote:
> > This ruling from the SDNY exposes the fallacy of your position: "3.
> >  Errors, Misstatements and Omissions in the Copyright Registration.
> >  Jewelex next alleges that Eyal does not hold a valid copyright in
> >  the jewelry design at issue in this case because the registration
> >  application fails to comply with the requirements set forth in 17
> >  U.S.C. §§ 409 (7) - (9) and (11). . ."
>
> Are you joining your fellow crank in posting references which 
> directly contradict your thesis? You quote the court's summary of the
>  complaint without quoting court's disagreement with it?
>
> <http://www.loeb.com/files/Publication/958cd8c9-1f66-4f59-99cc-04be39500f5c/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d74d06ae-abe1-4b26-9f21-0ac8a9f33c33/Eyal%20RD%20Corp%20v%20Jewelex%20NY%20Ltd%20SDNY%20Sept%202008%20den%20def%20SJ.pdf>
>
>
>
>
> Assuming arguendo that Eyal’s registration application contained 
> errors, misstatements, or omissions in one or more of the respects 
> urged by Jewelex, that does not resolve the ultimate question before
>  the Court.
>
> The ultimate question the Court must resolve is whether an error, 
> misstatement or omission in an application for registration 
> invalidates the copyright. Courts considering the issue have 
> generally followed a liberal approach to upholding erroneous 
> registration applications. ... In sum: after considering each of 
> Jewelex’s contentions that Eyal’s copyright registration is invalid,
>  I conclude that they do not, singly or in combination, entitle 
> Jewelex to summary judgment based upon the invalidity of the 
> registration in suit.

Why not refer to the relevant point Hyman? You claim that Andersen's
Copyright Office registration of BusyBox v. 0.60.3 with its
contributions from multiple authors is valid. I say it isn't. So read
the relevant part of the decision:


"Jewelex argues that Eyal failed to specify the correlation between the
jewelry designs within the collection as required by 17 U.S.C. § 408(c)
of the Copyright Act, and therefore the copyright is invalid. The Act
permits registration of multiple related works under a single
copyright application. 17 U.S.C. § 408(c)(2) provides:
(2) Without prejudice to the general authority provided under clause
(1), the Register of Copyrights shall establish regulations specifically
permitting a single registration for a group of works by the same
individual author, all first published as contributions to periodicals,
including newspapers, within a twelve-month period, on the basis of a
single deposit, application, and registration fee, under the following
conditions:"


Hyman, look at the relevant material:

"... a single registration for a group of works by the same individual
author,..."

Are you so cognitively impaired that you can't understand that BusyBox
is NOT NOT NOT NOT:

1) "a single registration"
2) "for a GROUP of works"
3) "by the SAME INDIVIDUAL author,"

Most reasonably intelligent people would effortlessly conclude that the
registration of BusyBox v. 0.60.3 is not "a single registration for a
group of works by the same individual author" (except you of course).

The Copyright Act does not allow an individual to register a work that
he does not own. Is that so hard to grasp?

Sincerely,
RJack :)