[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!" |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:17:45 +0100 |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > So what was your point, Hyman?
>
> You posted the link to sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf in what appeared
> to be a claim that being shipped DVDs and downloading copies was
> equivalent as far as subsequent redistribution. I demonstrated
> that the same document regards these as different.
I still don't get your point, Hyman. Are you playing the word game
regarding the meaning of (re)distribution word ("It depends upon what
the meaning of the word 'is' is" -- Bill Clinton)?
In essence, http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat121201.html as
concluded from
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_study.html says that
lawfully owned copies (material objects) made by means of downloading
from an authorized source squarely fall under 17 USC 109.
Time Warner, Inc.:
We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.
copyright.gov:
There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in
digital form. Physical copies of works in a digital format,
such as CDs or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same
way as physical copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully
made tangible copy of a digitally downloaded work, such as a
work downloaded to a floppy disk, Zip(TM) disk, or CD-RW, is
clearly subject to section 109.
Do you agree with copyright.gov's conclusion above, Hyman?
Yes or no?
If yes, do you agree that given
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation science applied
regarding the macroscopic objects (material objects -- "copies" under 17
USC 101), the passage you quoted in response to my message makes no
sense at all?
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", (continued)
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", David Kastrup, 2009/02/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/04
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!",
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/05
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2009/02/06
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/06
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2009/02/06
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/06
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2009/02/07
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/07
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rjack, 2009/02/07
- Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!", Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/07