"Hyman Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
amicus_curious wrote:
What difference would it make if they were somehow linked
> behind the scenes to some server owned by another company.
Verizon must honor the terms of the GPL only if it takes
actions permitted by the GPL but otherwise forbidden by
copyright law. I believe that the details of who owns the
storage and how the file is transmitted matter as to whether
this is the case.
So I can violate the copyright laws as I please if I only take care to store
all the illegal copies in someone else's warehouse? You are the height of
sillyness!
> Do you seriously believe that is the case?
It is a reasonable explanation of why the SFLC dismissed its
case against Verizon, made more plausible by the "actiontec
gateway" part of the URL.
It is extremely unlikely that this is the case. The SFLC dismissed its case
because it knew it was a losing proposition and that they would have to pay
for Verizon's legal fees. They didn't want to incur any more expense, so
they surrendered.
> It would be very unusual for Verizon to have back office
> direct connections to Actiontec.
And you know this how?
Because that is part of what I do for a living and I am very familiar with
how corporations structure backend storage. What on earth would qualify you
to come up with such a half-wit theory as you have done?
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
