Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Wrong. First sale is about distribution of authorized copies by their
> > owners. The GPL entitles your friend to make copies and he owns them.
> > So it does fall under first sale and only a contractual covenant can
> > interfere with your friend's right to distribute all his copies as he
> > sees fit under first sale and not the GPL.
> It is you who are wrong (but I know you will disagree, there's no point
> for you to reply). "Your friend" can only sell B not copies of B (B1,
> B2, etc...). That's forbidden under copyright.

Hey [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lee Hollaar the author of (I mean his
treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief
Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee)
told your comrade GNUtian dak several times in the past that GNUtian 
understanding of "first sale" is totally wrong. Here's what Lee Hollar 
who worked with the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property 
Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Internet, copyright, and 
patent issues as a Committee Fellow once told your comrade GNUtian 

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >First sale applies if there is a sale.  It doesn't if there isn't.
>> >Copyright defines the minimum set of rights that can be _sold_ to you.
>> >It does not apply to items to which you have no right in the first
>> >place, but to which you are unilaterally granted a conditional license
>> >to use and redistribute, without any exchange of consideration from
>> >your side.
>> Wrong, wrong, wrong, at least under United States copyright law.
>> "First sale" is just a shorthand for the judicially-created doctrine
>> that is now codified in 17 USC 109.  It does not require a "sale"
>> but applies to anyone who is "the owner of a particular copy or
>> phonorecord lawfully made under this title".
>What about "made under this title" don't you understand?

I seem to understand it a bit more than you do, it appears.

The phrase essentially means that the copy is not infringing, either
because it was made with the permission of the copyright owner or
it falls within one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's
reproduction rights.

>> I can become the lawful owner of a copy by gift or similar things
>> that are not a sale.
>Which then is not obtained "under this title".

More nonsense.  If the owner of the copyright gives me a copy, then
I am the owner of a copy "made" (not "obtained") "under this title."

> > 4. Rui sold or gifted copies of B to Terekhov (B1, B2, etc...). Rui
> >    was compliant with the GPL and provided access to source code to
> >    Terekhov. Terekhov is not a party under the GPL agreement regarding
> >    those copies to begin with, and he may resell those copies under
> >    first sale ignoring the GPL altogether.
> That's where you're wrong. You can't give copies of B under first sale,
> just B (your copy).

Hey retard, read again what I wrote above. All those (B1, B2, etc...) 
copies which *you gave me* ARE MINE.

Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to