Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf > > While disposition of a work downloaded to a floppy disk would only > implicate the distribution right, the transmission of a work from > one person to another over the Internet results in a reproduction > on the recipients computer, even if the sender subsequently deletes > the original copy of the work. This activity therefore entails an > exercise of an exclusive right that is not covered by section 109.
Yes, the electronic forward-and-delete form of (re)distribution is not considered to fall under 17 USC 109 by the Copyright Office given the lack of consensus between consulted parties regarding that topic. BTW, by the same reasoning, (re)distribution of copies (material object) by means of http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ would also NOT fall under 17 USC 109. Very interesting. I just note that Library Associations (American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, Medical Library Association and Special Libraries Association (the "Libraries), in response to comments submitted pursuant to the Copyright Office's Request for Public Comment dated June 5, 2000) seem to disagree with the U.S. Copyright Office: http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy disk, Zip(TM) disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109." More quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf: Red Hat, Inc.: Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109. The primary difference between digital and nondigital products with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded from the Internet without the printed documentation, without the box, and without the installation service. Many open source and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft. ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would jeopardize the ability of open source and free software licensor to require [blah blah] Time Warner, Inc.: We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium. Library Associations: First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose" and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion because of changing habits due to new inventions and discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property throughout society. So what was your point, Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss