David Kastrup wrote: [...] > I think that the problem here is one of ownership. How can you claim > the ownership of a copy if there is no payment and the content has not
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html > been donated in any kind of way? The law talks about copies "made > under this title". But I don't see how this title applies without any > recompensation or consideration towards the copyright holder. You're persistently being dense. To quote Hollaar... http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/54e86da699867eab ----- 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." ----- http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/db2c65b3a11f83ca ----- In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes: >> I can become the lawful owner of a copyrighted work without any >> exchange of consideration. It's called a gift. > >But then copyright does not apply. If I write a letter with a poem in >it to you, you are not allowed to pass it on to somebody else without >my permission. If I _sell_ a letter with a poem in it to you, you >are. Wrong, again. Copyright always applies in the United States for works that have been fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It has NOTHING to do with sale. A work is still protected by copyright, even if I find it in the street. If I am the lawful owner of a copy of a letter, perhaps because it was sent to me, then I can tranfer my ownership to another without the permission of the writer. That's what 17 USC 109 says. ----- See also http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf What it is says is that even under contractual restrictions, 17 USC 117 bars cause of action for copyright infringement when "the party exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for purposes of ยง 117(a)." Same as with 17 USC 109. Now, that, of course, doesn't preclude cause of action for breach of contract (provided that the contract formalities like assent were fulfilled, and that agreement contains clear wording regarding contractual forbearance from rights under 17 USC 109 and/or 17 USC 117 -- blatant misstatements of statutes like the GPL does it regarding the copyright act don't count)... but here comes totally idiotic GNUtians claim that the "GPL is not a contract"... heck, feel free to plead yourself out of court. ----- Citing Bennett the court noted that "in some cases, it is possible for a plaintiff to plead himself out of court by alleging facts that render success on the merits impossible. ----- Guess why FSF's "enforcement" motto is "Don't go to court"?! http://novalis.org/talks/lsm-talk-2004/slide-31.html No-brainer. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
