Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/20/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote:
This finding directly contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling that
to infringe, an action must violate one of the "specific exclusive
rights conferred by the copyright statute".

No, it's consistent with it - the violation was of the exclusive
right to copy and distribute a work.

Publishing "copyright notices" and "tracking of modifications"
do not require use of the rights in 17 USC sec. 106 and therefore no
sec. 106 rights are violated by not doing so.

And you sidestep the actual question, which was about how many court
decisions have supported the crank point of view while addressing
open licenses.

How many times must I explain to you that there are no legal
distinctions concerning so called "open" licenses.

The answer seems to be none, since the only decisions you quote are
old ones that are not specifically addressing open licenses.

A CAFC decision will NEVER overrule a Supreme Court decision, no
matter how old the Supreme Court decision is, no matter how many times you falsely claim the CAFC is empowered to do so.

"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system,
a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts
no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.";
HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).

RJack :)
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to