Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> >> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: >> >> > >> >> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html >> >> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) >> >> > >> >> > "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere >> >> > Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. " >> >> >> >> "additional usage rights". And the "Urheber" (author) has in the case >> >> in question granted his "Zustimmung", given certain conditions. >> > >> > Uh idiot dak. >> > >> > It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author >> > gives consent to sublicense. >> >> Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would >> seem that the authority of the second is better). > > § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG doesn't contradict > http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG > Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07), silly dak.
Your _first_ quote. Not your next to last one. >> But you are still barking up the wrong tree. What you claim is that >> the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right >> to sublicense. > > That's true, according to § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG, > you retard. Not at all. Again you are confusing _implicit__ grants with the _possibility_ to _explicitly_ grant rights to sublicense. It seems like understanding something simple as that does not come to you as easily as shouting insults. Though to be fair: it's been a long time since you came up with variety in that department either. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
