violation of GPLv2 - remedies?

[Sam Barnett-Cormack]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karsten M. Self [mailto:karsten at ix.netcom.com]On Behalf Of Karsten
> M. Self
>
>
> on Wed, May 08, 2002, Mahesh T Pai (paivakil at yahoo.co.in) wrote:
> > Abraham Ingersoll wrote:
> >
> > >Once a company has violated the GPL (v2), what remedies does the
> > >copyright holder have? What must a copyright holder do to
> protect these
> > >possible remedies, and what can/should a copyright holder do
> with regard
> > >to the original violator?
> > >
> > This is simple - meet a lawyer.
> >
> > >How drastically does the situation change if the publisher
> never bothered
> > >to officially register the copyright with the library of congress?
> > >
> > Registration does not make any difference
>
> This statement is patently false under US law:
>
>     http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/411.html

If you read it carefully, or read the connected notes, it states that the
copyright holder is still protected in every way, but the case cannot go to
the courts until it has been registered, and that registration "after the
fact" is okay

Additionally, that whole weirdness is not true in other jurisdictions.

--
Sam Barnett-Cormack
Software Developer
UK Mirror Service (http://www.mirror.ac.uk/)

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3