The "Death Penalty"...
Posted Mar 25, 2012 23:08 UTC (Sun) by rqosa
In reply to: The "Death Penalty"...
Parent article: Enforcing the GPL with Judo moves (The H)
> Are you cretin or just play one on TV?
Are you an IP maximalist, or do you just play one on TV?
> Can you imagine this dialogue in any court anywhere in the world?
Yes. For example:
Does the record in this case show that it is impossible for Plaintiff to prove particular instances of Defendant Howell’s illegal distribution of the copyrighted material through Kazaa, and the Defendant Howell is
responsible for the absence of such records of distribution?
> This is novel interpretation to me. Citation needed.
In its order, the court delivers the most decisive rejection yet of the recording industry's "making available" theory of infringement (i.e., if someone could have downloaded it from you, you've violated copyright, even if no one ever did).
Also, in their page titled "How To Not Get Sued For File Sharing
Disable the "sharing" or "uploading" features on your P2P application, if your application allows it (see below).
> Companies do it all the time with updates. You can only download and use them if paid for the original. Otherwise it's considered piracy and can be prosecuted in court. This actually happens from time to time.
> There are plenty of warez sites where you can download commercial proprietary software. People who did that end up in court and are fined regularly and §117 does not save them.
> These two sentences form a license. It may not look like 100-pages commercial licenses, but it's license nonetheless.
Then here's a better example: this program is available for download from the developer's website, with a simple copyright statement ("© Roderz 2003" on the web page and "Roderz 2003" in the title bar) and no license text whatsoever. And this isn't the only example of a copyrighted work (software or otherwise) distributed by its author without any license (which is therefore "all rights reserved" by default, according to the Berne Convention).
What's more, "all rights reserved" or equivalent is the usual condition for most non-software works — for example, printed books usually say something like this:
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
such "all rights reserved" conditions don't
prevent people from using
(as opposed to copying/distributing) the copyrighted work. Because copyright is copy
-right, not "use-right".
At least that's the status quo — but of course the likes of the BSA are doing everything they can to pressure every government into turning copyright into use-right. The public at large (and the FLOSS community in particular) needs to learn that it's in their interest to fight back against this, and then do so (e.g. by supporting the EFF and other such political organizations).
to post comments)