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 servants and slaves, doing it all for free,
being kicked out of their own "societies)