Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Sure. The defendants didn't do any copying, and the first
A copy made under license also falls under 17 USC 109 if/when the licensor doesn't retain the title to the copy made. "Feel free to make a single a copy of my work." This license has a scope limitation (only one copy). Note that the licensor doesn't retain the title to the copy made. The copy made under the license falls under first sale. > sale doctrine did away with restrictions on redistribution. > > > The pivotal issue was whether the copies sold by the defendant were > > copies which had been the subject of a first sale, thereby terminating > > their statutory protection: > > Wells was decided before the language of "lawfully made under > this title" was law. That does not matter. Wells has nothing to do with importation of copies made abroad. There is no connection to the recent Omega case. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_109 The drafters provided some clear examples and explanations regarding contract v. copyright: "A library that has acquired ownership of a copy is entitled to lend it under any conditions it chooses to impose. This does not mean that conditions on future disposition of copies or phonorecords, imposed by a contract between their buyer and seller, would be unenforceable between the parties as a breach of contract, but it does mean that they could not be enforced by an action for infringement of copyright." regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss