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:
>
> 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
>
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:
Ce
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 actiona
