Chloe Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >This is what I thought. So contributory infringement is not relevant > >here. By ordering us to read up about contributory infringement, I > >think Raul is trying to deliberately waste our time! :-) > > Certainly Raul is not wasting our time. It is a valid issue. I would just > note out of interest that Napster tried to raise the defense that the record > > companies gave all end-users an implied license to the MP3s they downloaded. > > By Napster's argument, if the end-users are licensed, we're out of here as a > > contributory infringer. Needless to say that argument lost in the 9th > Circuit.
If Napster tried to use this argument it supports my claim that contributory infringement is not relevant here. Of course, in Napster's case the premise (that end-users have a licence) is obviously bollocks, but the principle remains that contributory infringement is only possible where there is ordinary common-or-garden infringement. > My view on fixing this "problem" is to change the wording of the GPL to > specifically cover off the scenarios to which the GPL authors object. There > are just too many permutations and combinations outside of this context that > > could be affected by introducing the "covert distribution doctrine". It is > simpler to change the contract than the law. There isn't a contract. It's a public licence for gawd's sake. > Of course, we're talking only about U.S. law here. The relevant laws in > other jurisdictions may be the same or much different. I'm not talking about US law. I always talk about law "in general". This is partly because I'm only interested in licences that are valid across time and space and partly because I'm not a lawyer and don't have time to get into details of particular legal systems. Edmund
