Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Under California contract law... http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936 --- This is not legal advice... As an attorney spending a great deal of time on software related IP licensing and litigation matters, I find the CAFC decision in the Jacobsen case to be troubling. While I am sympathetic to the court's apparent desire to validate the concept of open source licensing and its alternative forms of consideration, I do not believe that the court's ruling justifies a euphoric response by the open source community. First, the CAFC's decision is a clear repudiation of the bare license theory long espoused by Mr. Moglen and his followers. The CAFC's decision reflects the fact that open source licenses, like any other form of software licenses, are contracts. I agree with this aspect of the decision as it is well supported by precedent at all levels. Neither Mr. Moglen, nor any of his followers have cited legal precedent in support of the bare license theory. The CAFC's decision should serve as clear notice that the bare license theory is nothing more than Moglen's wishful thinking. The necessary implication of this finding by the court is that open source licenses must be interpreted in the context of applicable state law, and to an extent, the common law of the Federal Circuit in which the open source agreement is interpreted. (This is directly in conflict with the CAFC's willful failure to follow state law and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the interpretation of restrictions as conditions precedent). Second, the CAFC's opinion creates a great deal of uncertainty for software licensing (whether proprietary or open source). Let's take the GPLv3 as an example. As most peoople are aware, there are a variety of disagreements over exactly what is required of a licensee to comply with various provisions of the GPL. Section 2 of the GPL appears to condition the rights granted under the license on the licensee's compliance with the conditions stated in the license. Under the CAFC's decision in Jacobsen, it stands to reason that a licensee that fails to fully satisfy the conditions stated in the GPLv3 would infringe the licensor's copyrights rather than merely breaching the license. Thus, even if the licensee unintentionally violated the terms of the GPLv3 because the meaning of the terms are not clear, the licensee would be liabile for infringement. Why does this matter? State courts, the federal circuit courts of appeal and the US Supreme Court have all uniformly and routinely interpreted license restrictions as covenants rather than conditions precedent. In other words, the courts presume that the restrictions are covenants rather than conditions precedent unless the agreement clearly defines the restrictions as conditions. the CAFC's decision wholly ignores this long held principle of law. Most licenses, open source or proprietary, contain provisions whose meanings are open to viable debate. In the past, parties to a software license have largely understood that a licensee that breaches a license agreement's terms is liable to the licensor for damages decided under contract law. Proprietary licenses typically include provisions which define or otherwise limit the scope of damages that may be recovered in the event of a breach. On the other hand, a party that is liable for infringement of a copyright is subject to injunctive relief and damages equal to the owner's actual damages (plus the infringer's profits not covered by the owner's actual damages) OR statutory damages of up to $150,000 per incidence of infringement. Any contractually agreed limitations on damages would be irrelevant in the infringement setting. The CAFC's Jacobsen decision unwittingly attempts to radically change the risks of licensing software. The CAFC states that any failure to comply with a license provision that the license even generally calls a condition is an infringement rather than a breach. Thus, any licensee that violates the conditions of a license, even if unintentional, is subject to infringement damages. If the CAFC's decision stands and is generally followed in the Circuits and state courts, (which it should not be), every license from this point forward will need to clearly state which, if any, restrictions are conditions precedent and which restrictions are merely covenants (all other restrictions). Moreover, the provisions that are conditions precedent will need to be defined with a high degree of care to minimize a licensee's risk of unintentionally infringing the copyrights as a result of miinterpreting the provisions. Another side note - many licesne agreement issues are brought in state courts. Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act, however, preempts any state court from hearing or deciding any cause of action which is equivalent to a copyright
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote: The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . . automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their clients right out of Court. Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. [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). Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
On 4/15/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Under California contract law... http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936 http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a Contract ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
On 4/15/2010 11:12 AM, me wrote: Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia. Fortunately, nothing the Supreme Court has said is inconsistent with the CAFC JMRI decision. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote: The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . . automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their clients right out of Court. Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court said: Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the problem of intercircuit conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive. The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case.; ATARI, INC., v. JS A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc) ROFL [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). ROFL Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 11:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Under California contract law... http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936 http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a Contract -- Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) -- -- Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226 (Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999) -- -- Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101- 1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them.; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) -- Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 11:12 AM, me wrote: Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia. Fortunately, nothing the Supreme Court has said is inconsistent with the CAFC JMRI decision. Also... up is down and black is white. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a Contract -- Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) -- -- Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226 (Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999) -- -- Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101- 1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them.; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) -- http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The author is a Faculty Fellow at Duke University School of Law and a 2003 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. Perhaps you should contact him and explain to him why he's wrong. Him is she, you idiot. http://www.sapnakumar.org http://www.sapnakumar.org/IMG_2030.JPG/IMG_2030-full;init_.JPG Or is she/he a shemale? Is that what you mean Hyman? regards, alexander. 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' -- 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: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
On 4/15/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Him is she, you idiot. I am insufficiently familiar with Indian-sounding names to determine their gender. The gender of the author has no bearing on the validity of the work, in any case. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The GPL is Not a Contract -- Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) -- -- Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226 (Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999) -- -- Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101- 1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them.; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) -- http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf The author is a Faculty Fellow at Duke University School of Law and a 2003 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. Perhaps you should contact him and explain to him why he's wrong. The authors of the decisions I cited are comprised of six Federal Circuit Appellate Court judges and a sitting Federal District Court judge. All have had their qualifications vetted and approved by the full body of the United States Senate. Perhaps you should contact your non-tenured junior research assistant (three years out of law school) and explain to him the legal authority hierarchy of the United States Judicial Branch of government. No federal court in the last 83 years has ruled a copyright license to be anything other than a contract interpreted under state law. For your Faculty Fellow to publish his ludicrous claims without even acknowledging the precedents of the federal courts set the past 83 years renders him unfit and unqualified for a research position at *any* U.S. law school. Pee Jay over at Groklaw can blather some really stupid statements but today you have outdone Her Highness at all levels. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al. I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. And when your prediction does not come true, like always, what will you then do? Just silently go away? Bluster about how wrong the court must be and/or how wrong the defendants to come into compliance and not revert to a higher court? Whatever RJack will do if judge Scheindlin will not grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1) aside for a moment, please answer the following simple question, dak. How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? regards, alexander. 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' -- 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: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
On Apr 16, 2:36 am, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote: The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . . automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their clients right out of Court. Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. This is also in line with the fundamental philosophy of copyright. A purely monetarist attitude would cause great difficulty in the case of something like the Mona Lisa where assessing a monetary value would be elusive. In any case the GPL would apparently be less open to this form of attack than the licence at issue in the case. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
peterwn wrote: On Apr 16, 2:36 am, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote: The statement . . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . . automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is conjectural and hypothetical. The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their clients right out of Court. Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. This is also in line with the fundamental philosophy of copyright. A purely monetarist attitude would cause great difficulty in the case of something like the Mona Lisa where assessing a monetary value would be elusive. One need only offer it on the open market at auction. Verifiable legal appraisals of property occur thousands of time each day. The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL is called its contractual interest. What US law does not recognize is the value of moral rights. In any case the GPL would apparently be less open to this form of attack than the licence at issue in the case. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al. I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. And when your prediction does not come true, like always, what will you then do? Just silently go away? Bluster about how wrong the court must be and/or how wrong the defendants to come into compliance and not revert to a higher court? Whatever RJack will do if judge Scheindlin will not grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1) aside for a moment, please answer the following simple question, dak. How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al. I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. And when your prediction does not come true, like always, what will you then do? Just silently go away? Bluster about how wrong the court must be and/or how wrong the defendants to come into compliance and not revert to a higher court? Whatever RJack will do if judge Scheindlin will not grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1) aside for a moment, please answer the following simple question, dak. How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends. I should think that you are jobless, right? regards, alexander. 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' -- 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: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote: The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL is called its contractual interest. Something like this: http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA) today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire MySQL AB, an open source icon and developer of one of the world's fastest growing open source databases for approximately $1 billion in total consideration. What US law does not recognize is the value of moral rights. You have apparently failed to notice 17 USC 106A. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0106---A000-.html § 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity ... (a bunch of stuff) ... (b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.— Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/15/2010 6:34 PM, RJack wrote: The value of a nonexclusive copyright license like the GPL is called its contractual interest. Something like this: http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html SANTA CLARA, CA January 16, 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA) today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire MySQL AB, an open source icon and developer of one of the world's fastest growing open source databases for approximately $1 billion in total consideration. What US law does not recognize is the value of moral rights. You have apparently failed to notice 17 USC 106A. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0106---A000-.html § 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity ... (a bunch of stuff) ... (b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.— Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. Yup. Only the author of a work of visual art ROFL Sincerely, RJack :) of a work of visual art ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote: Yup. Only the author of a work of visual art You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the value of moral rights. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:30 PM, RJack wrote: Yup. Only the author of a work of visual art You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the value of moral rights. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a work of visual art. For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition purposes only. VARA only protects works of recognized stature; posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded from VARA protection. The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the definition of works of visual art, thereby excluding such works from VARA protection. regards, alexander. 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' -- 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: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the value of moral rights. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a work of visual art. For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition purposes only. VARA only protects works of recognized stature; posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded from VARA protection. The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the definition of works of visual art, thereby excluding such works from VARA protection. Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law does recognize the value of moral rights. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the value of moral rights. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a work of visual art. For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition purposes only. VARA only protects works of recognized stature; posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded from VARA protection. The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the definition of works of visual art, thereby excluding such works from VARA protection. Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law does recognize the value of moral rights. a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~csundt/copyweb/CunardCAA2002.htm As a threshold matter, only certain art is protected by VARA: works that fit a definition of Works of Visual Art in § 101 of the Act. Works in traditional media such as painting and drawing are covered, but multiples such as sculpture and prints are only protected if the work is a unique print or if it is in signed and numbered editions of 200 or less. Similarly, still photographs produced for exhibition purposes are protected only if they are unique or are in signed, numbered editions of 200 or less. Specifically excluded are numerous items listed in the statute, such as posters, maps, models, applied art, motion pictures, or other audiovisual works, periodicals, databases, and art produced for primarily commercial purposes, such as advertising, packaging, or promotional material. Also excluded is any portion of a mixed-media work of art incorporating one of the specifically excluded items. regards, alexander. 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' -- 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: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
On 4/16/2010 3:13 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. It is a bit more like moral rights of art than moral rights of artists. They're trying to keep people from buying the Mona Lisa and drawing a mustache on it, but it's hard to write a law that expresses that but doesn't stop you from using a newspaper to wrap fish. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the value of moral rights. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a work of visual art. For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition purposes only. VARA only protects works of recognized stature; posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded from VARA protection. The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the definition of works of visual art, thereby excluding such works from VARA protection. Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law does recognize the value of moral rights. Computer programs are not works of visual art. What is exactly your goal? To deflect attention from the fact that the SFLC BusyBox lawsuits are abject failures? That a copyright license is a contract? To confuse folks concerning the fact that the GPL is unenforceable dure to lack of article III standing? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
On 4/16/2010 3:24 PM, RJack wrote: What is exactly your goal? To correct your incorrect statements. http://xkcd.com/386/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: David Kastrup wrote: How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends. I should think that you are jobless, right? I'd think you're friendless, too, eh? regards, alexander. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nurmberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: David Kastrup wrote: How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking, dak? I should think a lot more comfortably than you make friends. I should think that you are jobless, right? I'd think you're friendless, too, eh? I'm not friendless and I'm pretty sure that dak is jobless. regards, alexander. 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' -- 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
