Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
>  
> I don't see this particular case's outcome as ludicrous.  The defendant
> bought an upgrade (at reduced price) that required the previous purchase
> of a full license.  That you can't sell the media and full license and

"The problem with this theory of yours is there is nothing in the 
Copyright Act about "upgrades" and "full" versions. There are only
"copies". The original version was a "copy" and the "upgrade" was a 
copy. If the user originally *owned* the first version, and then 
purchases (and *owns*) the upgrade, then as far as the
Copyright Act is concerned, the user owns two copies, period.

Nothing stops the software publisher from, as a condition of 
selling the upgrade, requiring the user to transfer ownership 
(and possession) of the original copy back to the publisher. Doing 
this would solve the software publisher's problem, but apparently 
they are too lazy to be bothered with this."

No? Why don't you quote the sentence?

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.)