A group of freelance writers filed a class-action copyright infringement case in federal court in New York. The case was settled the judge approved the settlement, but some of the plaintiffs objected to the settlement on procedural grounds, and when the court entered final judgment, those objecting plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit. On its own motion, the Second Circuit raised the question of whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case, as some of the plaintiffs in the class had unregistered works.
Neither side in the dispute argued that the federal court was without subject matter jurisdiction, but the Second Circuit decided that it didn’t anyway. After all, subject matter jurisdiction pertains to the power of the court, not the rights of the parties, so parties cannot waive the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Concluding that it didn’t have jurisdiction, the Second Circuit reversed the approval of the settlement.
The defendants in the underlying case sought review with the Supreme Court. It reversed the Second Circuit, holding that the court did indeed have jurisdiction, even though some of the plaintiffs’ copyrights at issue were unregistered.
So what’s all this mean?
The case actually addresses a rather nuanced point of copyright law. And the effect of the holding will not change the end results of cases brought in the future with the same facts — after all, a non-registering plaintiff will still lose either way, now just for a different reason. Motions to dismiss copyright complaints alleging infringement of unregistered works will clearly fall under “failure to state a claim” and not “lack of jurisdiction”.
But the question of a federal court’s jurisdiction is of significant importance, regardless of how nuanced the question is, or the lack of difference in practical effect. The question of whether a court should dismiss a case because it doesn’t have the power to hear it, as compared to dismissing it because the plaintiff has not jumped through the appropriate hoops, is an important one.

Read the whole article here:

http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2010/03/supreme-court-reinstates-major.html