Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:
An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by
the copyright statute.
Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC:
<http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf> Under the Copyright Act, a
copyright owner is entitled to recover compensatory damages in the
amount of actual damages suffered or the disgorgement of profits by
the infringer attributable to the infringement. See 17 U.S.C. §
504(b). Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff distributed the
copied work on the Internet at no cost, there is also evidence in the
record attributing a monetary value for the actual work performed by
the contributors to the JMRI project. (See Declaration of Victoria
K. Hall in support of opposition, Ex. F (expert report of Michael A.
Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts in the record which may establish
a monetary damages figure, the Court finds Plaintiff has made a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of a dispute of fact
regarding the monetary value of Plaintiff’s work for purposes of his
copyright claim. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
on this basis is denied.
So even though Judge White is still fixated on monetary damage
despite what his appeals court told him, he nevertheless finds that
distributing a work for free on the internet does not free infringers
from copyright infringement claims.
1) "... in his decision post CAFC:" Huh? Of course Judge White said that
"post CAFC" -- he didn't have any choice -- the appeals court decision
was binding on him in this specific action. What a surprise!
2) Look at your citation again. "Because there are facts in the record
which MAY establish a monetary damages figure ... just MAYBE. "...
showing sufficient to establish the existence of a DISPUTE of fact".
So MAYBE there's a DISPUTE -- after the appeals court told him to say that.
You're attempting to put the words of the appeals court ruling
concerning "conditions" into Jugde White's mouth. So what? You can't
make an end run around the Supreme Court:
"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).
There wasn't any infringement in Katzer's distribution and that's
exactly what Judge White found *prior* to the CAFC summarily overruling
SCOTUS. ROFL!
"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php
ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
