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

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

Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scan


From: JEDIDIAH
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:01:46 -0000
User-agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-11 (Linux)

On 2010-09-20, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> JEDIDIAH <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On 2010-09-20, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     They should have gotten a visit from the BSA and the guy on Ebay should
>>>> have been left alone.
>>>
>>> Uh, they _were_ defendants here.  The "guy on Ebay" however can't well
>>> be left alone to sell the infringing copy of the original full version
>>> pretending that the buyer can still run it with a license from Autodesk.
>>>
>>> If he sells them as interior decoration items, Autodesk would have a
>>> problem hassling him for it.
>>>
>>
>>     Only one person should be on the hook for this shenanignan.
>>
>>     The reseller can't control the actions of the original owner. He
>> should not be held responsible for the illegal actions of a 3rd
>> party. This goes equally for the guy the guy on Ebay as it does for
>> Blockbuster or anyone else that rents or resells software.
>
> Sorry, but bartering stolen or not legally usable goods is not something

    Stolen is not something that can be reasonably used interchangeably with
something like "not legally usable". The only reason there is the slightest
bit of problem with the transaction is that someone is trying to subvert a
real right in favor of an artificial one and the courts are willing to go along.

[deletia]
>> The architect alone should be the only one on the hook here. Otherwise
>> the resulting precedent is nasty and has even more nasty implications
>> for the future.
>
> Wittingly reselling software that has no longer a valid license

    The license was perfectly valid.

> agreement under the false pretense that it does, is fraud.  In any way,

    Not it doesn't. The only party in violation of licensing here is the
original seller that doesn't have any rights to use the work anymore. It's
no different than if it had been a discrete work that doesn't have any
option to be upgraded.

[deletia]

    The architect's copy should not be treated any different than one
sitting at Microcenter. It moves and the rights associated move along
with it.

-- 

   Nevermind the pirates. Sony needs to worry about it's own back catalog. |||
                                                                          / | \


reply via email to

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