On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:59:59 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... > Thus copies made under copyleft (and other public licenses) fall under > exhaustion doctrine preventing copyright owners (licensors) using tort > theory (copyright infringement claims) regarding control of terms and > conditions for further distribution. > > Got it now?
Unfortunately, I think you've not got the European exhaustion doctrine. For traditional copies of non-electronic works, and for music CDs, DVDs of films, etc, once a copy has been place on the EU market with the copyright owner's consent, the owner's rights in **that particular copy** have been exhausted. He can't prevent onward transfer of **that particular copy** throughout the EU. So if you've bought a copy, you can transfer it to someone else, e.g. give it away or sell it secondhand. But the copyright owner's right to control the making and distribution of **further** copies is not exhausted. If you make a further copy without permission, that still infringes the copyright. The latest CJEU decision extends that for licensed software. If you have a licensed copy of non-free software, you can transfer or sell your licence secondhand. Importantly, the subsequent purchaser can make a copy so he can use it - the copyright owner can't prevent that. But you have to make your copy unusable after you've transferred the licence. And the copyright owner **can** prevent both you and the subsequent purchaser making and distributing **further** copies. Those would still infringe the copyright. And that's it. The new purchaser has the same rights you did, no more. This is the same as if you sold your copy of a music CD. Neither you nor the subsequent purchaser can make and distribute further copies of the CD. Now apply that to copylefted software. If you transfer it to someone else, and make your copy unusable, the new user can make the necessary copy so he can use it. But the CJEU decision doesn't give the new user any new rights to distribute further copies. So for both you and the new user, your only right to distribute further copies comes from the terms and conditions of the copyleft licence. I think you may be looking at the part of the decision which says that the copyright owner can't require the subsequent purchaser to sign the licence. But a copyleft licence doesn't require signature anyway. If you make copies, it's implied that you accept the terms. Put another way, the CJEU decision doesn't give anyone a right to make further copies, beyond the one needed by the subsequent purchaser to use the software. In the case of copylefted software, if a person to whom a copy has been transferred does make and/or distribute further copies, it must be implied he did so under the terms of the copyleft licence. He can't get the necessary right to do so any other way. -- Tim Jackson [email protected] (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
