For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again... David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > John Hasler wrote: > > [...] > >> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give > >> copies of the binaries to. > > > > 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED, > > WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise > > dispose of the possession of that copy. > > "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this > applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with > the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. ["the > license"]
HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476 (about 109): "any resale of an illegally ''pirated'' phonorecord would be an infringement, but the disposition of a phonorecord legally made under the compulsory licensing provisions of section 115 would not." DMCA Section 104 Report: (ignoring Red Hat's "concerns" orticulated by Red Hat attorneys during testimony***) http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf "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™ disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109." ***) < quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf > Red Hat, Inc.: Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109. The primary difference between digital and nondigital products with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded from the Internet without the printed documentation, without the box, and without the installation service. Many open source and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft. ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would jeopardize the ability of open source and free software licensor to require [blah blah] 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. Library Associations: First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose" and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion because of changing habits due to new inventions and discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property throughout society. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
