9th Cir. confused mind regarding copyright licensing

[Alexander Terekhov]

Recent opinion:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/03/09-55817.pdf

"Under our case law interpreting and applying the Copyright
Act, too, it is well settled that where a copyright owner
transfers a copy of copyrighted material, retains title, limits
the uses to which the material may be put, and is compensated
periodically based on the transferee’s exploitation of the
material, the transaction is a license. See, e.g., Wall Data Inc.
v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 447 F.3d 769, 785 (9th
Cir. 2006); MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d
511 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180,
1190-91 (9th Cir. 1977); Hampton v. Paramount Pictures
Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 103 (9th Cir. 1960).

It is easily gleaned from these sources of federal copyright
law that a license is an authorization by the copyright owner
to enable another party to engage in behavior that would otherwise
be the exclusive right of the copyright owner, but without
transferring title in those rights. This permission can be
granted for the copyright itself, for the physical media containing
the copyrighted work, or for both the copyright and
the physical media."

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.)