|
From: | Rjack |
Subject: | Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: | Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:36:45 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:Huh? What the hell does your cited case have to 17 USC 301(a)?Nothing at all, since federal preemption of copyright has absolutely nothing to do with the GPL. The cited case demonstrates that even though there was a contract between the rights holder and the user, when the user violated the contract, the court allowed a claim for copyright violation, not just breach of contract. This is contrary to the claims made by GPL doubters, who often incorrectly state that when the GPL is not honored it is not copyright violation but just a breach of contract. (And then go off into further error.)
They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* contractual term. Neither you nor the SFLC understand the difference between a "scope of permitted use" restriction and a "condition precedent" to a grant of rights -- the former is a direct limitation "in rem" and the latter is a term of contract construction. It doesn't make any difference whether sec. 2(b) is a covenant or a condition -- it is sure as hell not an "in rem" limitation on a grant of rights -- and therefore the term 2(b) is preempted by 17 USC 301(a) which forbids new "in rem" copyrights (Stallman's copyleft) created by *contractual terms*. 1) "You may use my copyrighted picture only on women's blouses" is a direct "in rem" scope of use restriction -- use on anything else is *copyright infingement*. Period. 2) "You may use my copyrighted picture provided that you first pay me 100 dollars" is a condition precedent -- it clearly says if no payment *first* then no copyright permission. Notice that a condition can't rest on the same copyright permission you wish to condition. In that case you can't get the permission to satisfy the condition because the condition can't be satisfied without permission. This result is called an impossible condition in contract construction and is strictly construed *against* the drafter. This is another mistake that is made in sec. 2(b) of the GPL. Sincerely, Rjack :) Sincerely, Rjack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |