Re: softwarefreedom.org and busybox fellows 'win' DEFAULT JUDGMENT

[Tim Smith]

In article <gaifg9$dj7$1@blue.rahul.net>,
 c.c.eiftj@XReXXsoftw.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> 
> >The JMRI case is completely irrelevant to the BusyBox cases, because the 
> >JMRI copyrights are all registered.  They readily show up if you search 
> >the copyright registration database.  Not so for the BusyBox copyrights.
> 
> I think the essential holding in the CAFC's opinion on the JMRI case
> would apply to non-US non-registered works too.

Of course.  BusyBox, however, appears to be a US non-registered work, 
not a non-us non-registered work.

(BTW, note that even for non-US works, registering makes extra remedies 
available beyond the requirements of Berne, and registration is cheap.  
Thus, we'd expect that even if someone were suing over a non-US work, 
they would register before filing suit, to take advantage of the extra 
remedies.  Thus, it is very puzzling to ever see a copyright suit filed 
in the US over a work that is not registered).

-- 
--Tim Smith