Re: First Sale upheld in software case

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > There is no right of attribution listed in 17 USC 106.
>
> There is no right to payment listed either. That is because the 
> list of rights lists the things that the rights holder alone may do
>  or authorize, not the forms of compensation he may elect to 
> receive.

Awww... com'on Hyman. 17 USC 106(3):

"to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending;"

The implementation (interface with others) of this right is through
contractual agreement. Please remember that even a condition precedent
is a contractual term (compare and contrast with a scope of use
restriction):

1) "I promise to pay you $100 dollars if you let me copy your work"
is a contractual *covenant*.

2) "You must pay me $100 before you may copy my work" is a *condition
precedent*.

3) "You may copy my work for any non-commercial purpose" is a *scope
of use* restriction.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

--"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement
constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe
in the absence of any license agreement at all."; Storage Technology
Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (CAFC 2005)--