(OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory

[Alexander Terekhov]

On Feb 10, 2008 2:54 AM, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2008 4:56 PM, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >>> On Feb 9, 2008 3:56 PM, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> What I'm "implying" is that your argument is specious.
> >>> Hand waving.
> >> I said very clearly why it's specious.  The government simply doesn't
> >> enforce the law, the vast majority of the time.
> >
> > Here again you seem to falsely imply that the act was somehow illegal.
> > I submit that the act was utterly legal.
>
> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  The point is that your argument, "And I'm
> still not in prison. How come?" is totally non-persuasive.

Ah, that was sorta rhetorical question, not an argument.

For arguments, see

http://www.dfc.org/dfc1/Active_Issues/graphic/first_sale.html
("A copy made in the course of an authorized download of a copyrighted
work is transferable under the first sale doctrine")

and note I've redistributed tangible objects.

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™ disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
 109."

regards,
alexander.

--
"Notwithstanding Jacobsen's confused discussion of unilateral
contracts, bilateral contracts, implied licenses, "licenses to the
world" and "bare" licenses in his Appellant's Brief, the issue at hand
is fairly simple."

 -- Brief of Appellees (CAFC 2008-1001).