Whether a party has an implied license to use and redistribute internet content that an author has made freely available without any effort to protect it

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This is a copyright infringement case. The questions presented are as follows: 1. A party who uses a copyrightable work with the implied license of a copyright owner is not liable for infringement. Such a license can arise from implied permission to use a work or a lack of objection. On the internet, the owners of potentially copyrightable publications (like blogs) can easily elect whether to continuously protect their work or, alternatively, to permit third parties (such as search engines) to use and redistribute their work. If an internet author chooses to make its work freely available on the internet, and to permit copying of the work, without making any effort to protect that work, does a party have an implied license to use and redistribute that content? 2. The express language of a statute enacted by Congress dictates that a district court “shall” seek input from the Copyright Office whenever there is an allegation that a copyright registration was procured by fraud. Is this directive a statutory mandate (as the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held) or a waivable suggestion (as held by the Fifth Circuit and the court below)? i