Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/13/2010 2:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > 17 U.S.C. § 109(a)
> The copies made and distributed by the defendants in
> this case are not first-sale copies, and therefore


"As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each
claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’
claim for copyright infringement is barred under at least the 
provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as Defendant was licensed and any 
copies alleged to be infringing were, therefore, lawfully made. "

Copies lawfully made fall under 17 USC 109 (fair use copies are also
lawfully made but distribution of such copies is subject to fair use
analysis just like making of such copies), silly Hyman.

To understand it better, think of the following saga:

Samsung (calling SFLC):

Hello SFLC, this is Samsung calling. Please be advised that we've made 1
(ONE) BILLION copies of GPL'd material copied verbatim and/or with
modifications. Please contact us within 3 (THREE) BUSINESS DAYS if you
think that our copies are infringing.

(After three days...)

Samsung (calling SFLC again):

Hello SFLC, this is Samsung calling. Please stick the GPL "permission to
pass copies" in Stallman's big ass as we are going to pass our copies
under 17 USC 109, thank you. 

Got it now, silly dak?


P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

(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

Reply via email to