Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
RIAA, others says CD ripping, backups not fair use (ARS Technica)RIAA, others says CD ripping, backups not fair use (ARS Technica)Posted Feb 17, 2006 3:33 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)In reply to: RIAA, others says CD ripping, backups not fair use (ARS Technica) by utoddl Parent article: RIAA, others says CD ripping, backups not fair use (ARS Technica)
The GPL doesn't add any restrictions which aren't already present in copyright law, and in fact reduces them greatly for people who are willing to comply with its terms. Contrast that with rhetoric in this case which claims that you don't have rights which are explicitly granted in copyright law.
Telling someone who doesn't like the situation "too bad, don't use it" is entirely different in each case. In one, it is telling them to obey the law. In the other, it is telling them to not exercise rights they have under the same law.
(Log in to post comments)
RIAA, others says CD ripping, backups not fair use (ARS Technica) Posted Feb 17, 2006 3:37 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] And another aspect to this I'd like to point out: I don't think anyone is saying that fair use doesn't apply to GPLed works. Works covered by it can be backed up, converted for use on other systems, loaned to friends, turned into private compilation works if not distributed, etc. just like the things which should (and are) allowed with music from legally purchased CDs. Even if the GPL claimed to prevent these things (which it does not), it could not do so for anyone who didn't agree to the terms of the license.
RIAA, others says CD ripping, backups not fair use (ARS Technica) Posted Feb 19, 2006 20:02 UTC (Sun) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] Indeed...One could excerpt 10 exemplary lines of GPL code (even v3) and publish them in a DRM-encumbered technical magazine article with restrictive copyright claims and even signed legal agreements between subscribers and the publisher--in other words, something so polar opposite to the intent and letter of the GPL that it would make RMS spin in his grave if he were dead. If said article had some value as educational material, criticism, or comment, it might still be fair use, about which the GPL can say nothing.
|
|||||||||||