"Tim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> wrote:
What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default copyright
rules". If there is no fee charged to use the work or to redistribute
the
work, the copyright can be ignored unless the author can show some degree
of
harm to himself.
Where did you get that idea? Not from the copyright statute, nor from
the case law.
From the case law being established in the JMRI case, or haven't you
noticed? The circuit court said that non-financial issues surrounding a
copyright needed to be evaluated in assessing harm to the author. The
district court originally said that only money mattered. The district court
on remand decided that no non-financial harm had been shown in the case.
The Plaintiff has not yet responded. The US Supreme Court has suggested
that there is not a absolute presumption of irreparable harm, so injunctions
are not so automatic as they once were. The commercial value of the
material being copyrighted is material to the case.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
