Elastic promises "open"—delivers proprietary
Elastic promises "open"—delivers proprietary
Posted Jan 28, 2021 12:02 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46)In reply to: Elastic promises "open"—delivers proprietary by kemitchell
Parent article: Elastic promises "open"—delivers proprietary
Yes, Yes, Yes, and... somewhat. :D
That unattributed "Rightful Possessor" vs "Owner" change is still being argued over in many venues, with the "we agree this decision sucks, but we're bound by precedent, and it's up to Congress can fix this" punt in Vernor v. Autodesk appeal. Meanwhile, that "licensed vs sold" hand-wavery attempt to avoid transferring "ownership rights" (while simultaneously saying things like "own your copy today" in advertising copy) is one of the reasons laypeople have strong opinions about the legal profession.
But there can still be an effective "transfer of title" that occurs when the copy is handed over, which means the recipient is a "owner" of the copy. (see the UMG vs Augusto case, where the 9th circuit ignored their Vernor precedent. That scenario does seem more directly applicable to F/OSS than Vernor..)
What a mess, eh?
> Just another schmuck who's put too much time and thought in to quit.
Don't sell yourself short; unlike nearly everyone else here, you actually _are_ a lawyer, and have direct experience with this stuff.
So, um, thank you for sticking through this too!
Posted Jan 28, 2021 15:15 UTC (Thu)
by kpfleming (subscriber, #23250)
[Link]
At the same time that the major US content producers leverage the DMCA as a cudgel, and push the RIAA to act on their behalf, those same content producers loudly proclaim that you can 'own' a movie by purchasing a copy. The content delivery networks will even advertise that you can 'own' a movie by purchasing an indefinite-term access token to be able to play the movie from their service. Of course these are both BS, there is no 'ownership' involved in either transaction, and the license being granted in the transaction is revocable at any time and terminable at the will of the content provider/producer with no notice requirement and no recourse available to the licensee.
Posted Jan 28, 2021 18:52 UTC (Thu)
by kemitchell (subscriber, #124442)
[Link] (2 responses)
Augusto is the right citation. Thanks for poking me to read it again. You could cite the case as weakening the conceptual case for the rule from Vernor. But it's also empirical proof positive that the courts will disparate treatment for software. They can and do treat it as a special case. It kind of is a special case. Particularly with regard to computer software, we have recognized that copyright owners may create licensing arrangements so that users acquire only a license to the particular copy of software and do not acquire title that permits further transfer or sale of that copy without the permission of the copyright owner. The court mentions that there were more factors to the rule in Vernor than just one. But it doesn't actually run through them systematically. Go looking, and you can find distinctions it does make that maybe wouldn't go the same way for open software, rather than commercially licensed software. The absence of a "prior arrangement" for delivery of the copy. No attempt to keep track of specific copies. No response indicating agreement, though I'd argue open licensing is still very much "consensual". But the court's just piling on. They have the special statute about what happens when you mail unsolicited merchandise to people. As I'm told Moglen used to say: "Don't learn copyright law from free software people." It's important to remember that we don't see copyright like other users of the system. Our policy preferences are often the opposite of prevailing and established public policy. Software might have been covered by its own, special IP statute. We saw that for a time in Japan, for example. But it was put under copyright instead. Some of the established expectations and rules for older media haven't translated over to software. The general trend is making room for industry to monetize rights in software, as it figures out how to do that. Especially in light of how quickly and often distribution and marketing have changed. If you mail a game critic a boxed copy of your next title and it ends up on eBay, I wouldn't be surprised to see a decision applying Augusto for the same result. But I suspect that would have as much to do with honoring long-held expectations about physical products as with any refinement of the First Sale Doctrine.
Posted Jan 28, 2021 20:31 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
May I suggest you take a look at groklaw.net? Sadly, it's a cobweb site now, but a lot of us cut our "lawyerly" teeth there, and the site owner was a paralegal who made us do our homework! (The Library of Congress picked it out explicitly for archiving.)
While I'm not aware of the Nazgul actually contributing to the site, I'm pretty certain they would have been monitoring it for the SCO vs IBM case ...
Cheers,
Posted Jan 28, 2021 20:34 UTC (Thu)
by kemitchell (subscriber, #124442)
[Link]
Elastic promises "open"—delivers proprietary
Elastic promises "open"—delivers proprietary
Elastic promises "open"—delivers proprietary
Wol
Elastic promises "open"—delivers proprietary