** Michael K. Edwards :: > On 7/14/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > > But I'm not talking about USE, I'm talking about the > > > possession of a copy of the code. You are not permitted to > > > have a copy of the code without permission under the law. > > > Period, end of story, except no substitutions. > > > > Please cite the part of copyright law that says this. > > Sean's a little bit right here (is that like a little bit > pregnant?), in that copies made without authorization are in > principle subject to seizure and forfeiture no matter who is > presently holding them. AIUI (IANAL), that's true of stolen and > converted property generally and specifically, under 17 USC 509, > of copies whose unauthorized creation and distribution rises to > the level of criminal infringement under 506(a).
Michael, I normally agree with you, but you are way off-base this time. He was referring to copies that were LAWFULLY acquired from a LICENSED distributor. > > But that doesn't necessarily mean that possession of such a copy > is itself a criminal act. Lots of people come back from trips > abroad with counterfeit goods (infringing copyrights and/or > trademarks) bought at a street fair or something, and while I > don't think I would knowingly buy such a thing myself, I also > wouldn't call the cops if a friend gave me one as a gift (and > wasn't as far as I know, engaging in a commercial-scale fraud > scheme, etc.). In fact, I was once sold a counterfeit copy of a > Microsoft product, and it's not clear to me whether the person who > sold it to me knew that it was counterfeit; my compromise (so far) > has been not to narc but not to buy anything there ever again. "Bona fide" third parties are normally exempt. If you (inadvertently) buy stolen merchandise for 10% discount from store price, you can be considered a "bona fide" third party. If you buy the same merchandise for a 90% discount, then you are not. When working in the DA's office, I encountered this same problem over and over: should the office prosecute someone who bought for $40, from a thief, a tv set whose store price is $50? And if he bought it for $10? But this is a digression, and has nothing to do with Sean's affirmation: He affirmed that one has to agree to the GPL to possess a copy of a GPL'd program. This was to construe the argument that a GPL clickwrap on installation does not constitute an additional restriction over the GPL, which IMHO is false, because (IMHO again) the GPL (sections #0 §1 and #4) grant the right to use the program (and henceforth to copy it during installation, and then from HD to RAM, from RAM to on-chip-cache) unconditionally. -- HTH, Massa
