http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=011049
(Opinion for: MDY INDUSTRIES, LLC V. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
09-15932)
The question of copy ownership aside, the court rejected the
copyright claim and held:
Were we to hold otherwise, Blizzard or any software
http://www.barrysookman.com/2010/12/20/teachings-from-the-blizzard-wow-case/
The second ruling provides guidance on when a restriction in a software
license is a condition, the breach of which constitutes copyright
infringement, and when a restriction is a covenant, the breach of which
is
On 12/21/2010 9:04 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[http://www.barrysookman.com/2009/12/17/open-source-movement-gets-big-boost-from-copyright-laws-and-dmca-in-jacobsen-v-katzer/];
Why overruled?
Not overruled at all, not even theoretically. As usual, your
citation contradicts your thesis:
On 12/21/2010 8:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What impact could that reasoning have on the copyleft-like licenses?
Nothing, because in the case of copylefts, the disfavored
conduct involves copying, which is covered by copyright law.
___
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:
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
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
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
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
copyright infringement is a possible result of license violation.
It is the nature of the license violations that determine this.
Hyman, Blizzard argued exactly that way. And lost.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
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
On 12/21/2010 10:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Copyleft doesn't forbid creation of derivative works.
You miss the point. The court has said that some violations
of the terms of service are copyright violation, and some
are not. The difference lies in whether the violating action
is an
On 12/21/2010 10:56 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Essentially, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the
breach of a license agreement must implicate one of the exclusive rights
of copyright to give rise to a copyright infringement claim: [W]e have
held that the potential for infringement exists
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
17 USC 109
The GPL allows copying and distribution only under its terms, and
distinguishes between copies for personal use and distribution.
It is a violation of copyright to distribute the former as the
latter, and the first sale doctrine is not relevant to this
On 12/21/2010 11:16 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The US courts disagree with you Hyman.
No, they do not.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/550/550.F2d.1180.76-1141.html
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 28, 1977.
...
While the copyright laws protect
On 12/21/2010 11:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How the manner of *not* providing source code could ever
implicate one of the licensor's exclusive statutory rights?
Manner of copying is within the exclusive rights of the copyright
holder. For example, authors may sell hardcover publication
On 12/21/2010 11:55 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
In sum, the legislative history of Section 109(a) reveals that the
phrase lawfully made under this title clarifies what constitutes a
first sale for purposes of the first sale doctrine
This is false, at least as held by the Ninth Circuit and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The GPL very carefully lays out its restrictions so that they are
all part of the act of copying . . .
An act of providing the source code is part of the act of copying?
Take your meds Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
17 USC 27 is no longer the law; the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect
on January 1, 1978, after the above ruling, and the first sale doctrine now
reads differently. Rather than allowing resale of works lawfully obtained
17 USC 109 allows resale of works lawfully
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
exactly that, a copy made as permitted by this law. Omega vs.
Costco resulted in first sale not applying to imported items
Yeah.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=41f6d942-54be-48f4-a3a7-b766881d6ebd
During the Costco oral arguments, the Court seemed
On 12/21/2010 11:59 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
An act of providing the source code is part of the act of copying?
It's part of the act of copying and distributing. You must
either convey the source code with the binary, or convey an
offer of the source code. Failing to do either infringes
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 12/21/2010 11:59 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
An act of providing the source code is part of the act of copying?
It's part of the act of copying and distributing. You must
Distributing a copy lawfully made under 17 USC by its owner is an act
under 17 USC 109 and it
On 12/21/2010 12:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Distributing a copy lawfully made under 17 USC by its owner is an act
under 17 USC 109 and it doesn't require the copyright permission
at all.
Distributing a copy that was made under a personal use license
infringes copyright because lawfully
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 12/21/2010 12:35 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Distributing a copy lawfully made under 17 USC by its owner is an act
under 17 USC 109 and it doesn't require the copyright permission
at all.
Distributing a copy that was made under a personal use license
infringes
On 12/21/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You're in denial, Hyman.
No, you just fail to read and understand.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/550/550.F2d.1180.76-1141.html
defendant's sale of the comics did not constitute copyright infringement
since plaintiffs had engaged in
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
On 12/21/2010 12:06 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 12/21/2010 11:59 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
An act of providing the source code is part of the act of copying?
It's part of the act of copying and distributing. You must either
convey the source code with the binary, or convey an offer of the
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Alexander and I attempted to explain multiple times that the Federal
Circuit was wrong in Jacobsen v. Katzer. You should really find an
easier topic than law to comment about. I'm afraid the subtleties of the
law are too difficult for you.
The subtleties of the
27 matches
Mail list logo
