ZnU wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, Alexander Terekhov
<[email protected]> wrote:
ZnU wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, Alexander Terekhov
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote: [... Verizon webserver transmitting
from an Actiontec site ...] And how that would make
Verizon any less a distributor of that content just
like the Actiontec itself?
Because things are murky when it comes to deciding who is
responsible for making copies when a user asks for a
download and a web server goes to another server to ask
for the content and transmits it to the user?
Nothing is murky here. The owners of both servers are doing
distribution. Both are distributors.
Are the owners of all the routers between you and Verizon
also distributors?
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
Verizon's distribution page (initiating/offering transmission)
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
doesn't fall under 17 USC 512.
Don't you think so, ZnU?
It comes pretty close. It might fail on (a)(2) because Verizon
seems to be selecting the material available, but I suspect a
clever lawyer could manage to spin that around until a judge
thought otherwise....
The Verizon lawsuit involved no registered copyrights. The copyright
infringement claims were without standing to even be heard in
federal court so 17 USC 512 is *utterly irrelevant*. If SFLC and GPL
supporters want to argue "victory" in a federal case let them file
a complaint eligible for jurisdiction under copyright law. Then let
the case proceed to trial -- something that has happened zero times.
The SFLC is trying the same tired propaganda tactics used by
"creation science" against evolution. Hyping the GPL with obviously
frivolous lawsuits isn't winning any new converts to "Free
Software".
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
