[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
From: |
Rjack |
Subject: |
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:09:32 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Hmmmm. . . "to the extent possible".
Here's an interesting case:
<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh>
Court Upholds Copyright Infringement and Unauthorized Access
Claims Where A Single User License Was Shared By Multiple People
The incorrect claims made by opponents of the GPL often center
around assuming that once license has been granted to make
copies, it is somehow not infringement when terms of the license
are not honored.
Who are those GPL opponents "often" claiming such?
"Terms of the license" are not honored when they are illegal or
otherwise unenforcable under prevailing contract or copyright law.
The GPL contains terms of this nature.
We see from this case that the court considers it a violation of
copyright when a license meant for one user is shared by many,
even though the one user would have the rights granted to him by
the license.
Is the GPL meant for only one user? I thought it was a "general
public" license.
And this case: <http://c>
The Court disagreed, stating that a claim of copyright misuse
cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/200703/district-court-finds-plaintiff-satisfies-case-or-controversy-requireme
merely requires “a nexus between the copyright holder’s actions
and the public policy embedded in the grant of a copyright.” In
applying this standard, the Court found that Plaintiff’s
scholarly work embodied the type of creativity that copyright
laws exist to facilitate.
Courts are quite capable of looking at an overall situation and
noticing who is acting properly and who is not.
I haven't the slighted idea why you cited to this case but it's *OK*
by me since it strengthens my claims of copyright misuse as a
defense in SFLC GPL claims:
"The Court denied the motion to strike the defense of copyright
misuse because it is a proper defense during the period of misuse
and can be asserted based on Defendants’ actions vis-à-vis third
parties."
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/200703/district-court-finds-plaintiff-satisfies-case-or-controversy-requireme
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, (continued)
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/11
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, diogratia, 2009/02/13
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/12
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/12
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Peter Köhlmann, 2009/02/12
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/12
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/12
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/12
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/12
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/12
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar,
Rjack <=
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/12
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/13
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/13
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/13
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/13
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/13
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/13
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Peter Köhlmann, 2009/02/13
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/13
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/13