[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:43:17 +0200 |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> rights of the copyright holder. Creating the copies allowed
> by the first does not give you permission to distribute them.
Facts:
(1)
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."
(2)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_109
(House Report No. 94-1476 (Extract))
"To come within the scope of section 109(a), a copy or phonorecord
must have been "lawfully made under this title," though not
necessarily with the copyright owner's authorization. For example,
any resale of an illegally "pirated" phonorecord would be an
infringement, but the disposition of a phonorecord legally made
under the compulsory licensing provisions of section 115 would not."
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
P.S. Go to doctor, Hyman.
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, (continued)
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rui Maciel, 2009/10/11
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/10
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Robert Heller, 2009/10/10
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/10
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Peter Köhlmann, 2009/10/10
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rui Maciel, 2009/10/11
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rui Maciel, 2009/10/11
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Tim Smith, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/14