In 2009, several freelance writers filed a class action lawsuit against publishers, claiming that the publishers had, without permission, reproduced certain works. In other words, the publishers had...

In 2009, several freelance writers filed a class action lawsuit against publishers, claiming that the publishers had, without permission, reproduced certain works. In other words, the publishers had committed copyright infringement. With the first court’s approval, a settlement was reached between the two parties. However, the writers subsequently decided that they were unhappy with the settlement and appealed. The second court considered whether the federal court had actually had jurisdiction over the case. The second court ultimately determined that federal law (14 USC § 411(a)) takes away federal jurisdiction if a copyright holder has not registered a work prior to suing for copyright infringement. Thus, the second court reversed the original decision and the settlement did not stand. The case was then brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court tried to determine whether the failure of a copyright holder was enough to actually take jurisdiction over the case away from a federal court. How do you think the Supreme Court ruled? Should the federal court have had jurisdiction over the case even if the copyright holders failed to register a work prior to the case? Elsevier, Inc., et al., v. Muchnick et al., 130 S. Ct. 1237, 176 L. Ed. 2d 18; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2202 (2010).