(OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Sun Feb 10 16:27:43 UTC 2008
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
("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.
"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
"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).
More information about the License-discuss