RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 2/7/2010 7:19 AM, RJack wrote: >>> If "authorizing" is reserved as "exclusive" for the "author" of a >>> work how does a "non-owner" do any authorizing? >> >> Because the original author has authorized him to do so. > > Sorry Hyman, only the U.S. Congress has the power to write the > copyright laws and "authorizing others to authorize" simply doesn't > appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of > copyrights.
You mean, the author does not have the right to let a publisher create copies authorized for reading? Or that authorization to read is so utterly different from authorization to copy that the latter can't be delegated to a different party? > Only in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way. Authorization for legal acts is not particular to copyright law. > Your socialist interpretation of copyright law Yaddy, yadda, yadda. Don't you have better things to do with your time than to spout ridiculous nonsense? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
