Huh? It's no change at all for someone who wants to retain copyright. They would just need to file to register.
> We just have a reference on what NOT to write.
You may be confused. This is how it already works. No change.
Even more importantly, the vast majority of copyright claims aren't litigated in a court at all. Most are handled by extrajudicial processes such as the DMCA takedown process. You do not have to register to issue a DMCA takedown.
Furthermore, right now people just register before bringing their suit because they have 5 years to do so. The proposal above is a lot different than what you're suggesting and the law doesn't work as you're describing.
It is. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/supreme-court-cop...).
>Even more importantly, the vast majority of copyright claims aren't litigated in a court at all. Most are handled by extrajudicial processes such as the DMCA takedown process. You do not have to register to issue a DMCA takedown.
Service providers don't take things down in the absence of any proof of a copyright.
>Furthermore, right now people just register before bringing their suit because they have 5 years to do so. The proposal above is a lot different than what you're suggesting and the law doesn't work as you're describing.
You have unlimited time to register. It's not 5 years. You just need to register prior to bringing a suit.
It is not, as explained by your own link. You should read your own link. Registering makes it enormously easier and nearly everyone will register prior to bringing a suit, but it is absolutely not required -- again, as your link clearly explains.
Furthermore, your point is academic because what people do in practice is simply register just prior to bringing a suit (after the infringement takes place)
> Service providers don't take things down in the absence of any proof of a copyright.
Yes they do - in fact the DMCA requires them to do so.
> You have unlimited time to register. It's not 5 years. You just need to register prior to bringing a suit.
The 5 years matters, but yes, this is why your point about registering is entirely without merit.
Oh so you're making a point about the narrow exceptions that generally don't apply? I'm not going to engage in a bad faith conversation like this. If you are suing over a US work, the only way to bring suit is to have a registration, been refused a registration, or, as you seem to think is an incredibly important distinction, is a VARA work. Do you litigate copyrights? Where exactly are you coming from on this?
>Yes they do - in fact the DMCA requires them to do so.
No, they wont in the absence proof of ownership of a work which is conventionally reflected in a registered copyright.
>The 5 years matters, but yes, this is why your point about registering is entirely without merit.
No, it doesn't.
>Code by default is usable by anyone.
"by default". Any serious entrepreneur wouldn't fall on the default to begin with if the potential losses are that large.
> registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.
Sounds like a good recipe for more Oracle vs Google battles in my eyes. We just have a reference on what NOT to write. Now there will be discretion on if you just happened to write this kind of code or if you took X+1 lines of a code base when X is allowed. Very useless metrics for a productive piece of software, but the kind thst will absolutely be used by courts.