Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And on basis of what law do you think that Appeelees are obliged to let third parties know about those "extra permissions granted to them by the copyright holder, above those allowed by copyright law"
17 USC 106(3) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; The terms of distribution are under the control of the copyright holder, as when he separately authorizes the creation of hardcover and paperback copies of a book. In the case of open licenses, one of the requirements is that distribution be accompanied by the license.
An "if" hypothetical is not evidence.
There is no need for evidence. One of the purposes of an amicus brief is to point out possible consequences of a decision, including to parties outside the case.
http://terekhov.de/2009-1221/AppelleeBrief.pdf
The claims of a brief are not evidence either. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
