Protection vs remedies
Haemmerli 6, A.B. Vassar College, M.Sc. London School of Economics, M.A. and Ph.D. Harvard University, J.D. Columbia Law School. (Alice, Fall 2006, “ARTICLE: Why Doctrine Matters: Patent and Copyright Licensing and the Meaning of Ownership in Federal Context”, 30 Colum. J.L. & Arts 1, 19, Lexis accessed online via KU libraries)
[*19] The disjunctive use of "protection afforded the copyright owner or the remedies available to the copyright owner" makes it clear that the drafters viewed protection and remedies as two separate concepts, and did not mean to lump the first under the second. "Protection" refers to the rights of owners that are protected by the Act. In fact, one of the parties to the discussion about the draft legislation said explicitly: "I think one of the purposes [of eliminating indivisibility] is the purpose of suit - to enable the holder of the separate right to sue." 103 If "one of" the benefits envisioned was the ability to sue, then how could the intent behind the revision as a whole be limited to that benefit? Rather, the differentiation between protection and remedies, and the concept of remedial access as but one of the benefits of revision, establish that the drafters intended to endow the owner of a separate copyright right with all of the rights and benefits enjoyed by the copyright owner. This evidence contradicts the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that Section 201(d)(2) intended to confer less than plenary rights on exclusive licensees.