"David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> By definition a third party is a stranger to a contract. ("It goes >> without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.") (EEOC V. >> Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 294 (2002)). The contract term >> that purports to control (without privity) the distribution rights >> of all "all third parties to their own exclusive contributions in >> derivative and collective works creates a "right against the world" >> ? that is, in essence, a new copyright regulation. ("A copyright is >> a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast, generally affect >> only their parties; strangers may do as they please, so contracts do >> not create "exclusive rights.") (ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d >> 1447, 1454 (7th Cir. 1996)). > > This alone is such a hilarious piece of nonsense.
I was thinking the same thing. What a leap of logic. A contract indeed can not bind a "non-party", but a "third-party" does NOT always equal "non-party". While a "third-party" that does not accept the terms of the license (or is not even aware of it) would be a "non-party", a "third-party" that DOES accept the license would become a "party" to the license by accepting it's terms, and would therefore be bound by it. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
