| |||||||||||
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)Posted Oct 9, 2006 20:23 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205)In reply to: Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) by AJWM Parent article: Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com)
Keyword being distributing them. You need a license to do things restricted by copyright law - distributing in particular. You need a license to print and distribute copies of my book. But if you do that without a license, I sue you - not the poor sod that bought a copy of the book from you. And it's not illegal for him to read it, either.
(Log in to post comments)
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 13, 2006 0:57 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I sue you - not the poor sod that bought a copy of the book from you. There's a crucial difference here. The users did not buy an existing copy -- i.e. transfer possession of a copy from someone else. They made new copies. They did that by downloading from a web site. They had no permission from the copyright holder to do that download. Though the copyright owner can't stop such a user from running the program, it's normal reparations to demand that the unpermitted copy be destroyed.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:30 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Eh, technically speaking everytime you do anything on a computer, you're making copies. The server made a copy to memory, another copy to the network buffer, another copy on the local segment, which then a succession of routers copied onto more segments, all the way to the network card copying to a buffer, which is copied to the ram, then to the disk, then back to the ram... but that's not copying under copyright law. There's a specific exemption, in the US at least, for incidental copying in the use of computer programs, and courts of all jurisdictions should look for common sense interpretations rather than literal ones. In this case, the common sense interpretation would be that the *distributor* made a single copy which he then sent across the network to the customer, who effectively has and uses that single copy.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 19, 2006 1:05 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] In this case, the common sense interpretation would be that the *distributor* made a single copy which he then sent across the network to the customer, who effectively has and uses that single copy. I'll grant that if the distributor made the copy, then just the transmission to the user doesn't constitute another copy for copyright purposes. It's an intriguing idea to say that when you click "download," you're just requesting that the distributor make you a copy, and it's all on him if he chooses to accomodate you. Did he give you a copy, or did you take one? What I'm seeing in current copyright cases is the courts are more than willing to blame everyone involved in making the copy happen, even someone who did nothing but tell the recipient how to get the copy. None of them have clean hands, and the copyright owner is free to collect damages from whomever is most convenient.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 19, 2006 3:54 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] It's an intriguing idea to say that when you click "download," you're just requesting that the distributor make you a copy, and it's all on him if he chooses to accomodate you. Did he give you a copy, or did you take one? My browser sent a request to his server, his server sent me a copy, or refused the request. Sure sounds like he gave it to me. Unless, of course, I had to use some sort of exploit or trickery to get him to send it...
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 19, 2006 5:25 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] You're expected to take some responsibility for your actions too. If you had not clicked on the link, his server would not have sent it to you. You're both culpable.
So... If you see some oranges stacked in front of a grocery store, do you take a few because they're just left there unprotected?
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 19, 2006 6:28 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] If the grocer offers me some for free, and I take them, then it turns out later they weren't his to give away, the responsibility for that is on him, not I.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 19, 2006 18:41 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] If you have reason to suspect that the item you're downloading is illegal (i.e. the owner has no right to give it to you), then you are responsible too.
The laws differ from state to state, but afaik every state assigns some responsibility to the receiver as well. Look up 'trafficking stolen material'. (if you're not in the U.S. then I really hope your country has similar laws to prevent fencing of stolen goods).
Here's one example:
Anyhow, regardless of the law, I still hope that you would take some responsibility for your actions.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 19, 2006 23:01 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] The analogies are badly off in the sense that they are discussing property and theft, rather than copyright and copyright infringement.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 20, 2006 1:47 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] You said, "the responsibility for that is on him, not I." Well, under U.S. law, the responsibility is indeed on both of you. I just wanted the analogy to introduce another situation where you are expected to behave responsibly regardless of your surroundings. I'm certainly not trying to conflate oranges and computer files. :)
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 20, 2006 3:10 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Well, under U.S. law, the responsibility is indeed on both of you. But that's not true. As you said, there is an extra element that has to be there before I hold any responsibility at all. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the grocer has authority to give away his oranges. Where the analogy breaks down badly is recovery, however. If the grocer gives me oranges that aren't his, and this is discovered before I eat all the oranges, any left may be recovered as stolen property. I'm not responsible for his theft, but the proper owner of the oranges still has title on them. He cannot, however, charge me for the ones I've eaten - he has to go to the grocer for that. In cases of copyright infringement, there's no analogy there at all - since making a copy illegally doesn't deprive anyone of their pre-existing copy, there's no recover to be made, only damages to be sued for.
Konsole license violations highlight GPL confusion (Linux.com) Posted Oct 19, 2006 14:31 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] My browser sent a request to his server, his server sent me a copy, or refused the request. Sure sounds like he gave it to me. Sure, if that's your mental model of what an HTTP GET is, and if you're a network engineer, that may well be the model that prejudices you. If you're less technical, you might see it this way: The distributor puts up copying machine. You approach the machine and operate its controls to cause it to make you a copy. Analogy: A library provides a photocopier and a shelf of popular legal contract forms next to it for copying. I make one, to save the price of buying a copy of the form. Did I make the copy, or did the library make it and give it to me? All I did was send a request to the computer inside the photocopier, by pressing the START button, and the machine, following programming controlled by the library, chose to make the copy and deliver it to me in the output tray.
|
|||||||||||