[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!" |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:31:07 +0100 |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
>
> While disposition of a work downloaded to a floppy disk would only
> implicate the distribution right, the transmission of a work from
> one person to another over the Internet results in a reproduction
> on the recipients computer, even if the sender subsequently deletes
> the original copy of the work. This activity therefore entails an
> exercise of an exclusive right that is not covered by section 109.
Yes, the electronic forward-and-delete form of (re)distribution is not
considered to fall under 17 USC 109 by the Copyright Office given the
lack of consensus between consulted parties regarding that topic. BTW,
by the same reasoning, (re)distribution of copies (material object) by
means of
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/
would also NOT fall under 17 USC 109. Very interesting. I just note that
Library Associations (American Library Association, Association of
Research Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, Medical
Library Association and Special Libraries Association (the "Libraries),
in response to comments submitted pursuant to the Copyright Office's
Request for Public Comment dated June 5, 2000) seem to disagree with the
U.S. Copyright Office:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
"There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy
of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a
floppy disk, Zip(TM) disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
109."
More quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf:
Red Hat, Inc.:
Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
licensor to require [blah blah]
Time Warner, Inc.:
We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.
Library Associations:
First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
because of changing habits due to new inventions and
discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
throughout society.
So what was your point, Hyman?
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.)
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", (continued)
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", none of your buisiness, 2009/02/06
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2009/02/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!",
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2009/02/06
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/06
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2009/02/06
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/06
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2009/02/07
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/07