SFLC will love the 7th Circuit
Alexander Terekhov
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Mon Oct 15 23:45:47 UTC 2007
On 10/16/07, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> Philippe Verdy scripsit:
>
> > This won't apply to the Linux kernel, that Google did not originate itself,
> > so when it distributes it, it remains under the obligation of the Linux
> > licence. This is not a First Sale distribution, because Google has no
> > exclusive right on this kernel
>
> The first-sale doctrine refers to the sale of physical objects that
> embody the fixation of a copyrighted work, such as a book on paper or
> CD or a computer program in a device. The owner of the object can sell
> it without the permission of the copyright owner.
>
> > this would require thousands of separate non-GPL licence agreements
> > with ALL those authors, accepting to relicence their code in a way that can
> > be sublicenced by Google).
>
> This turns out not to be the case either.
"+1"
Related:
< 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.
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply008.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™ disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
109."
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
regards,
alexander.
--
"To show the falsity of 'PJ''s claims, in most cases I need look no further
than Groklaw itself. 'PJ' wants more journalists to use the site as a
resource, so I'll do just that. Below are excerpts from my story that 'PJ'
says are incorrect, followed by 'PJ''s characterization of them, and my
response -- at times taken directly from Groklaw."
-- http://tinyurl.com/2mn3jc
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list