[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
From: |
RJack |
Subject: |
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:15:59 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:
"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless
it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by
the copyright statute.
The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the
absence of any license agreement at all.
And you're full of beans Hyman:
"In exchange and in consideration for this collaborative work, the
copyright holder permits users to copy, modify and distribute the
software code subject to conditions that serve to protect downstream
users and to keep the code accessible.2 By requiring that users copy and
restate the license and attribution information, a copyright holder can
ensure that recipients of the redistributed computer code know the
identity of the owner as well as the scope of the license granted by the
original owner. The Artistic License in this case also requires that
changes to the computer code be tracked so that downstream users know
what part of the computer code is the original code created by the
copyright holder and what part has been newly added or altered by
another collaborator." -- CAFC
Show me the exclusive right to attribution in the Copyright Act and
I'll kiss your ass on the public square. Likewise show me where in the
Copyright Act that *failure* to copy something gives rise to infringement.
"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).
Sincerely,
RJack :)
"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php
ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, (continued)
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled,
RJack <=
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23