Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals
On 12/21/2010 9:48 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: that breach of a condition not to use bots doesn't violate the copyright act. Why do you think that a copyleft condition not to restrict users downstream should be treated any differently? Because the court itself said so: https://www.eff.org/files/MDY_opinion.pdf For instance, ToU § 4(D) forbids creation of derivative works based on WoW without Blizzard’s consent. A player who violates this prohibition would exceed the scope of her license and violate one of Blizzard’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. In contrast, ToU § 4(C)(ii) prohibits a player’s disruption of another player’s game experience. Id. A player might violate this prohibition while playing the game by harassing another player with unsolicited instant messages. Although this conduct may violate the contractual covenants with Blizzard, it would not violate any of Blizzard’s exclusive rights of copyright. Copyleft licenses impose conditions on how works may may be copied and distributed, which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder under the copyright act. The copyleft enforcement theory based on copyright-not-a-contract silliness is authoritatively dead under MDY precedent. As usual, you are wrong. The court decision explicitly says that copyright infringement is a possible result of license violation. It is the nature of the license violations that determine this. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] suppose I simply provide a written offer regarding source code. You come to me for the source code with that offer. I [refuse]. How does that would violate the copyright act? It wouldn't. You would have correctly complied with the conditions for copying, and therefore there is no copyright violation. But I now possess a written promise from you which you are not honoring, so my course of action would be to sue for breach of contract, not of the GPL but of your written offer. You're making progress Hyman!!! But what does a condition to GIVE written offer has to do with rights spelled out in 17 USC 106 in the first place? The nexus is non-existent. See the light now? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] In the case of copyleft licenses, copiers who do not obey the terms of the license are still copying . . . . WoW gamers are also copying the game in order to play and even though the imbecile court ruled that such copying doesn't fall under 17 USC 117 (because the games are not owners of their WoW copies), it still held that breach of a condition not to use bots doesn't violate the copyright act. Why do you think that a copyleft condition not to restrict users downstream should be treated any differently? The copyleft enforcement theory based on copyright-not-a-contract silliness is authoritatively dead under MDY precedent. Got it now, silly? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals
On 12/21/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: But what does a condition to GIVE written offer has to do with rights spelled out in 17 USC 106 in the first place? Because they are conditions on how the work may be copied and distributed, and are therefore part of the exclusive right of the copyright holder under the Copyright Act. Just as the court decision said: https://www.eff.org/files/MDY_opinion.pdf For instance, ToU § 4(D) forbids creation of derivative works based on WoW without Blizzard’s consent. A player who violates this prohibition would exceed the scope of her license and violate one of Blizzard’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. In contrast, ToU § 4(C)(ii) prohibits a player’s disruption of another player’s game experience. Id. A player might violate this prohibition while playing the game by harassing another player with unsolicited instant messages. Although this conduct may violate the contractual covenants with Blizzard, it would not violate any of Blizzard’s exclusive rights of copyright. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Sure. The defendants didn't do any copying, and the first A copy made under license also falls under 17 USC 109 if/when the licensor doesn't retain the title to the copy made. Feel free to make a single a copy of my work. This license has a scope limitation (only one copy). Note that the licensor doesn't retain the title to the copy made. The copy made under the license falls under first sale. sale doctrine did away with restrictions on redistribution. The pivotal issue was whether the copies sold by the defendant were copies which had been the subject of a first sale, thereby terminating their statutory protection: Wells was decided before the language of lawfully made under this title was law. That does not matter. Wells has nothing to do with importation of copies made abroad. There is no connection to the recent Omega case. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_109 The drafters provided some clear examples and explanations regarding contract v. copyright: A library that has acquired ownership of a copy is entitled to lend it under any conditions it chooses to impose. This does not mean that conditions on future disposition of copies or phonorecords, imposed by a contract between their buyer and seller, would be unenforceable between the parties as a breach of contract, but it does mean that they could not be enforced by an action for infringement of copyright. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
