On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've never seen cases or commentary on this point either. I suppose > it wouldn't be worth the lawsuit. Even if my interpretation were to > prevail, all it gets someone is the right to execute the software > on the one computer he downloaded the work to.
The only case I can find on s.50C is the Sony "Messiah chip" case from 2002. The judge in that case held that: "The real question is whether an importer of a non-PAL Sony game may lawfully, in the country from which it is imported, would have any right to play the game in this country. That depends upon the existence of a licence to use the copyright work in this country." A quick forage on Westlaw suggests the following aspect as well: Article 5(1) is concerned with the lawful acquirer of an *existing* copy of the software (see the recitals to the directive). That is, Article 5(1) is a (limited) "exhaustion of rights" provision. However, when you download software, you are not acquiring an existing copy - you are creating a new one. Hence Article 5(1) does not apply. > True. In business-to-consumer transactions the question if you can > waive liability (and if so, how much) is a big one. It could thus > theoretically become relevant if the consumer accepted a waiver at all. Agreed. But even in a B2C setting, first you have to establish whether there is any liability to the consumer in the first place. I don't think the Debian project or any of its upstream licensors have any liability towards me as a "consumer" - so the question of whether I could waive that liability doesn't arise. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
