"Hyman Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
What is still way up in the air is the matter of compensation due to the
infringed party. If that becomes a trivial outcome, there may as well be
no protection at all. In order to show value, the author will have to
show that a market exists for the infringed material.
You are missing the point of the JMRI case. The courts will
not allow the exclusive rights of copyright holders to be
vitiated just because they are not asking for money in
exchange for the right to copy.
I agree that is true.
No market is required.
Copying in violation of license is copyright infringement,
and those who do so will be required to stop and will be
liable for statutory infringement.
The court said "Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted
material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open
source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic
consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic
benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public
licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example,
program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing
certain components free of charge. Similarly, a programmer or company may
increase its national or international reputation by incubating open source
projects. Improvement to a product can come rapidly and free of charge from
an expert not even known to the copyright holder. The Eleventh Circuit has
recognized the economic motives inherent in public licenses, even where
profit is not immediate. See Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc.,
261 F.3d 1188, 1200 (11th Cir. 2001) (Program creator Aderived value from
the distribution [under a public license] because he was able to improve his
Software based on suggestions sent by end-users. . . . It is logical that as
the Software improved, more end-users used his Software, thereby increasing
[the programmer=s] recognition in his profession and the likelihood that the
Software would be improved even further.."
It seems to say that there has to be some defined economic advantage still
for the plaintiff to show. With no showing of additional values, the
minimum statutory damage would seem to be limited to $750 per work, of which
there is only one. So Jacobsen could get $750 and maybe court costs for his
trouble and that would be it. Alternately, Kratzer could simply recode the
pieces in question.
Nothing here says that Kratzer could not keep his changes to himself either.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss