[johnnyanmac]

I already asserted that this would not expand the public domain. People just won't publicly post as readily as they do now. You have a very charitable interpretation that assumes we would get the exact same code output we do now despite a radical change in how ownership works.

>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.

[throwaway09223]

> Any serious entrepreneur wouldn't fall on the default to begin with if the potential losses are that large.

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.

[freejazz]

Do you realize to bring a copyright action you have to register the work? Your theory is not going to change anything, because it's based on false premises.

[throwaway09223]

No, that's not correct. Registering helps in establishing ownership but it is NOT necessary to bring a suit.

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.

[freejazz]

>No, that's not correct. Registering helps in establishing ownership but it is NOT necessary to bring a suit.

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.

[throwaway09223]

> It is

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.

[freejazz]

>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.

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.