Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/27/2010 10:53 AM, John Hasler wrote: innocent infringement Innocent infringement occurs when you have reason to believe that a work you are copying is not under copyright. Or reason to believe you are in compliance with licensing conditions (like when licensing conditions are ambiguous). Having a copyright notice attached to the work defeats such a claim. No, that has nothing to do with it. _Any_ copyrightable material _is_ copyrighted by default according to the Berne condition. Copyright notices are not necessary. You need something substantial to be able to assume not under copyright. In fact, in a just-decided case http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/maverick_harper_100225FifthCirDecis.pdf the Fifth Circuit decided that the mere fact that songs were available on CDs which carried copyright notices was sufficient to defeat such a defense, whether or not the defendant ever actually saw them. Because copyright is the default even in absence of copyright notices. If copyright notices are merely absent, that does not make for an assumption of must be public domain. There has been some deadline in the 70s or so when things were the other way round, so if you get hold of material definitely published before that time by an _authorized_ publisher and without copyright notices, you might be successful with that defense. Other than that: slim chance. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 5:21 PM, RJack wrote: Except the claimed conditions aren't conditions at all -- they're contractual covenants. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. Crank vs. court. Court wins. [U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins. ROFL Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
David Kastrup writes: There has been some deadline in the 70s or so when things were the other way round, so if you get hold of material definitely published before that time by an _authorized_ publisher and without copyright notices, you might be successful with that defense. That's what got ATT on BSD Unix. Other than that: slim chance. Which is what I said: You _might_ manage innocent infringement. But, as I noted, it would be pointless because you would still have to come into compliance or cease distributing which is all that the SFLC demands anyway. Innocent infringement merely reduces the penalties. It is not a free pass for copyright infringement. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 3/1/2010 4:57 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com writes: Having a copyright notice attached to the work defeats such a claim. No, that has nothing to do with it. Wrong. 17 USC 401(d) says: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#401 (d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2). (The exception isn't relevant here.) And the Fifth Circuit just decided that had access means that a copy with copyright notice exists and is generally available, and it is not necessary to show that the defendant saw and was aware of such a notice, for the innocent infringer defense to be disallowed. http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/maverick_harper_100225FifthCirDecis.pdf ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 3/1/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The infringing use is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in the copyright statute. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/1/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The infringing use is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in the copyright statute. Sadly your apparent inability to understand the distinction between the proposed use (scope restriction) and the enumerated exclusive rights themselves leaves you appearing as ignorant as ever. Neither copyright attributions nor licensing utilize the exclusive rights in copyrighted source code and as a consequence of this fact, the proposed uses cannot conflict with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Both copyright attributions and copyright licenses are written in plain English -- not model train source code. Your claims to the contrary leave you looking utterly foolish. You should take more pride in yourself. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins. ROFL Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote: Sadly your apparent inability to understand the distinction between the proposed use (scope restriction) and the enumerated exclusive rights themselves leaves you appearing as ignorant as ever. The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute. Neither copyright attributions nor licensing utilize the exclusive rights in copyrighted source code Correct but totally irrelevant, because the exclusive rights which are being infringed is the right to copy and distribute. and as a consequence of this fact, the proposed uses cannot conflict with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute. Both copyright attributions and copyright licenses are written in plain English -- not model train source code. Your claims to the contrary leave you looking utterly foolish. You should take more pride in yourself. Model train source code is written in a mixture of computer language and plain English. But that makes no difference anyway. As a CONDITION for the USE of COPYING and DISTRIBUTION the LICENSE requires ATTRIBUTION. Should the work be copied and distributed otherwise, the conditions are violated and the copier has no permission to copy and distribute the work, and doing so is an infringement of the rights holder's exclusive right to copy and distribute. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote: The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute. You are finally seeing the light Hyman! Copying and distribution are *expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with neither scope of use restriction nor condition precedent to limit the licensed rights -- the only contractual covenants such as promises to attribute and licensing. Jacobsen's claims sound in breach of contract and not copyright infringement. I knew you'd get it sooner or later! When did you finally realize that simply using a phrase like provided that cannot magically turn a contractual covenant into a scope of use restriction or condition precedent? The Supreme Court stated that fact with crystal clarity: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins. ROFL Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote: The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute. You are finally seeing the light Hyman! Copying and distribution are *expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with neither scope of use restriction nor condition precedent to limit the licensed rights -- the only contractual covenants such as promises to attribute and licensing. Preamble This license establishes the terms under which a given free software Package may be copied, modified, distributed, and/or redistributed. The ^^^ intent is that the Copyright Holder maintains some artistic control over the development of that Package while still keeping the Package available as open source and free software. Permissions for Redistribution of the Standard Version (2) You may Distribute verbatim copies of the Source form of the Standard Version of this Package in any medium without restriction, either gratis or for a Distributor Fee, provided that you duplicate ^^^ all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers. At ^ your discretion, such verbatim copies may or may not include a Compiled form of the Package. And so forth and so on. Your with neither scope of use restriction nor condition precedent can't be called much more than a desperate lie. I knew you'd get it sooner or later! When did you finally realize that simply using a phrase like provided that cannot magically turn a contractual covenant into a scope of use restriction or condition precedent? There is no contract to which two parties agreed (where is the signature? Where an act of contract forming?), so we can't claim a contractual covenant. The Supreme Court stated that fact with crystal clarity: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to copy and modification without a license, there we are. You can't _both_ claim that the license permits copying and modification while at the same time claiming that the conditions for which it does so are not conditions. Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins. You bet it does. And the moron does not even understand the words the court uses. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
