tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post3853849410556469673..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Which Act Applies to What?William Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-91692889391684851162008-04-23T10:15:00.000-04:002008-04-23T10:15:00.000-04:00Anon, what I am saying is that a co-owner who sues...Anon, what I am saying is that a co-owner who sues gets 100% of the damages from the defendant, but then has to share the award, proportionally, with the co-owners who did not go to the trouble and expense of suing, and that is where it can get tricky with the suing co-owner wanting to deduct the litigation expenses before doling out the proportional share of the award to the non-suing co-owners.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-84019425784642892752008-04-23T10:07:00.000-04:002008-04-23T10:07:00.000-04:00That's interesting. A 1/6th co-owner who sued in t...That's interesting. A 1/6th co-owner who sued in the UK would get only 1/6th damages. Do you say that the same co-owner suing in the US wld get 100% damages and that the other co-owners are precluded from suing independently? A neat rule; so long as the 1/6th owner can be trusted to pay over the others' shares.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-7433376190181499252008-04-23T10:00:00.000-04:002008-04-23T10:00:00.000-04:00Dear Anon, your concerns don't come to pass in the...Dear Anon, your concerns don't come to pass in the U.S.: one award would be divided among all co-owners.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-56132208215371503282008-04-23T09:50:00.000-04:002008-04-23T09:50:00.000-04:00The rule you suggest is certainly convenient for p...The rule you suggest is certainly convenient for plaintiffs and, as to co-owners, is the rule elsewhere (eg the UK). But it is troublesome. If there are 6 co-owners, why should the defendant be potentially exposed to 6 successive suits by each co-owner? How are statutory damages to be awarded?<BR/>If the 6 co-owners join in an exclusive license, it seems the point is aggravated one more time. I prefer here the British rule that the licensee must join the licensor, precisely to protect the defendant from multiple suits. True, the exclusive licence in England is not treated as a property interest; but I don't think the joinder rule rests on that point.<BR/>Of course, the defendant presumably has the right himself to join other parties to bind them to the judgment, but why place the onus on him rather than the plaintiff(s)? Why should they be given the right to lie in the weeds to see how the first suit fares before taking up the cudgels themselves?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com