gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL traitor !


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:01:26 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hi, Hyman,

In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen <address@hidden> wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Sure. But it does not mean that the work is necessarily free from the copyright of others.

It is free from the work of others unless it contains pieces of the other work copied into it.

You've been saying this for several days now, that copyright only applies to copying the text of an original work into another, and have been deducing various absurd results from it.

This assertion is false, not in minor detail but manifestly so. I'm
not talking about things like pictures, films, and recorded music
(where the images and audio are effectively "text"). Counterexamples to your assertion (translation of a novel to a different language, compilation of computer source code), have been in this thread, unchallenged, for some time, yet your arguments have remained blithely oblivious to them.

Copyright covers not only the literal copying of a work, but also its use, including adaptation. (If you disagree with that, go and correct the wikipedia page on copyright, please.)

The term "use" probably causes more confusion than any other term in
the area of copyright law. The term "use" is much narrower in scope
when referred to in copyright law than when employed in patent law.

The "uses" prevented by copyright law are uses that directly violate
one of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106. Directly violate
one of the exclusive rights and you have committed a tort. You may
contractually prevent broad "uses" of a copyrighted work but
contractual violations are enforced under contract law and not
copyright law.

"Use of a copyrighted work by one who does not own the copyright
constitutes infringement under federal law, [57] provided the use
falls within the scope of a copyright owner's exclusive rights.
[58]. . .

[n.58]
17 U.S.C. § 501(a). "Use" other than reproduction, adaptation,
distribution, performance, and display does not amount to "copying"
under the Copyright Act, and is not, therefore, actionable
under federal law. 2 Nimmer, supra , § 8.01[A], at 8-13, 14. See, e.g.
, G.S. Rasmussen & Assocs., Inc. v. Kalitta Flying Serv., Inc. , 958
F.2d 896, 904 (9th Cir. 1992)(implicitly holding that the interest for
which plaintiff sought protection under state law -- the "use" of its
Supplemental Type Certificate as a basis for obtaining an
airworthiness certificate from the FAA -- fell outside  the scope of
the exclusive rights granted under federal copyright law, and
plaintiff's state claim was not, therefore, preempted)."; DSC
Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, Inc. 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir.
1996).

The Nimmer treatise cited above is treated by the United States
Supreme Court as the consummate authority on US copyright law.

It is worth repeating,("Use" other than reproduction, adaptation,
distribution, performance, and display does not amount to "copying"
under the Copyright Act, and is not, therefore, actionable
under federal law.}


Sincerely,
Rjack :)










reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]