Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
> > Once the GPL is invalidated
>
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> Copyright holders
> who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the
> modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second
> Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976),
> the "unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would
> constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to
> any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the
> proprietor of the copyright." Copyright licenses are designed to
> support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or
> enforce that right. 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.
>
> You've already lost.

You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is filed
in the Second Circuit. The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the
federal system. I hope and pray that the SFLC cites to the CAFC. It will
be a real treat to see a federal district court judge rolling on the
floor laughing before dismissing the case.

............
In a recent case in the Southern District of New York, Yurman Studio,
Inc. v. Castaneda, 07 Civ. 1241 (SAS)(S.D.N.Y. November 19, 2008),
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin reminds us of the well settled
principle that "At the end of the day, 'statutory damages should bear
some relation to actual damages suffered' [citing RSO Records v. Peri,
596 F.Supp. 849,862 (SDNY 1984); New Line Cinema Corp. v. Russ Berrie &
Co., 161 F.Supp.2d 293,303 (SDNY 2001); 4 Nimmer Sec. 14.04[E][1] at
14-90(2005)] and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'"
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html#1456008093780326775
............

Sincerely,
RJack :)