Kuhn: A Comprehensive Analysis of the GPL Issues With the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Business Model
Kuhn: A Comprehensive Analysis of the GPL Issues With the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Business Model
Posted Jul 10, 2023 13:59 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)In reply to: Kuhn: A Comprehensive Analysis of the GPL Issues With the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Business Model by Wol
Parent article: Kuhn: A Comprehensive Analysis of the GPL Issues With the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Business Model
The rules are different for physical objects (like books or CDs) vs. “digital content”, such as software you download. If you obtain a copy of a copyrighted work as a physical object (book, CD, USB thumb drive, …), you get to dispose of that particular object as you please (including defacing it, selling it on, etc.), but your ownership of the copy doesn't let you make copyright decisions concerning the original work (such as making and selling more copies, or commissioning a movie based on (the content of) a book). The legal doctrine is called “copyright exhaustion”.
OTOH, whether copyright exhaustion applies to digital copies of a work is unclear. For example, if you download a musical recording as an MP3 file, according to copyright law you don't get to sell that recording to someone else, because that sale would result in the creation of an extra copy (even if you later remove your own copy of the file), and the creation of extra copies remains the copyright holder's prerogative. The same reasoning would apply to “defacing” an MP3 file – this would usually result in unauthorised copies being produced, and hence not be allowed, modulo the “fair use”-type provisions that exist in certain jurisdictions. (It has been long established that, e.g., the fact that a piece of software must be copied from secondary storage into RAM in order to execute it is irrelevant as far as copyright is concerned, but that of course doesn't give you blanket permission to make extra copies in order to “deface” it.)
