On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:54:46 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > The "not paying $1 per copy" is not part of the authorized act. The > contract establishes two acts: 1) One party authorizes the other > party to copy 2) The other party accepts the obligation to pay for > each copy > > Of course the "not paying $1 per copy" is part of the authorised act. > That you insist on listing them as two sperate things is completely > irrelevant.
We're not getting through to each other. How do I say this without getting into a "is too/is not". When we enter into a contract that says "you may copy, at cost of $1 per copy", then we both have an obligation as a result. I have to tolerate the copying, you have to pay $1 for every copy. If you do not pay, you are in breach of contract. I then take you to state court. Since the payment is a material part of the contract, I can claim damages or even terminate the contract. Damages could be the royalties due with interest, maybe punitive damages as well. If the court terminates, you /no longer/ have a license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract What I *cannot* do is sue you for copyright infringement in federal court. I waived that right by licensing you. The federal court will look at the license you raised as a defense, see that the act "copying" is mentioned there, and throw me out telling me to go to state court to collect my money. Merijn _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
