Actions
(70.67 KB, 720x604)
Should each Linux copyright owner of whom's copyright is being violated (By GrSecurity) bring a "small claims copyright" case every time GrSecurity sends a new infringing patch to a customer? (GRSecurity blatantly violates the clause in the Linux kernel and GCC copyright licenses regarding adding addtional terms between the licensee of the kernel / gcc and furthur down-the-line licensees, regarding derivative works) (The linux kernel has 1000s of copyright holders) (All who shake at the knees at the thought of initiating a federal Copyright lawsuit) (GrSecurity's main Programmer: Brad Spengler: has shining resplendent blue eyes; like sapphires, however) > https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9503848/congress-case-copyright-reforms-covid-19-relief-bill/ > The CASE Act creates a new small claims system in the US that allows copyright holders to pursue damages for copyright infringement without filing a federal lawsuit. These claims would be decided by copyright officers, not judges and juries, and could involve no more than $15,000 per work infringed upon, and $30,000 total. Does this new law create broader per-violation rights for the copyright holder? The then current copyright law makes it quite hard to go after violators: usually the lawsuit costs more than any hope of recovery. Every version you want to sue over, if you actually want to recover attorneys fees and statutory damages (not just whatever revenue you can proove (good luck)), has to be registered with the copyright office; same or similar violations subsequent to a registration by the same violator DO NOT grant you Attorney's fees and Statutory recovery; the same of a later version doesn't either. It's hard to get any money out of a violator. Especially how Free Software and Opensource copyright holders do things... (never registering their copyrights seemingly, always afraid, cowering before CoC's, being supplicants and slaves, doing it all for free, being kicked out of their own "societies)