To my understand this "first sale" thing is only about that particular copy
you get. i.e., you can give that particular copy to anyone without getting
copyright holder's permission, but once you give it out, the right ends. It
makes no sense to say that you can _copy_ any material under the "fir
I'd recommend dropping the case of "Intellectual Property" as I don't think
this is a strict legalese, just a brainwashing propaganda carried out by some
politicians and big companies. Actually even my law teacher (who is a lawyer)
admits that writting "Intellectual Property" in a contract witho
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Actually, what Therekov "forgets" is that First Sale would apply to the
> plastic, and not to the content inside it. Alas. He's so... Therekov!
Huh? What do you mean by "the content inside of it"?
--
--Tim Smith
_
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:02:54 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > > That's not what I'm saying. You purchase 500 copies, not one. You
> > > have a choice: 500 CDs in a box, or download-and-burn-yourself.
> > > You choose the later. How many
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>
> On 2006-06-30, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> > [...]
> >> An interesting case happened some time ago here in the Netherlands.
> >> A calendar was published that contained for every month a nice
> >> reproduction of a painting
On 2006-06-30, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> [...]
>> An interesting case happened some time ago here in the Netherlands.
>> A calendar was published that contained for every month a nice
>> reproduction of a painting, all by the same painter (Rien
>> Poor
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> > That's not what I'm saying. You purchase 500 copies, not one. You
> > have a choice: 500 CDs in a box, or download-and-burn-yourself. You
> > choose the later. How many times are you going to download?
>
> If the ability to circumvent the GPL depends on first sa
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> An interesting case happened some time ago here in the Netherlands.
> A calendar was published that contained for every month a nice
> reproduction of a painting, all by the same painter (Rien
> Poortvliet). Someone bought a lot of calendars, cut out the
> reproducti
Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006-06-30, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And as such it is not interesting to split a book into chapters for
>> separate resale. One could imagine doing so with a book that's a
>> compilation of articles, for example. I'm quite su
On 2006-06-30, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And as such it is not interesting to split a book into chapters for
> separate resale. One could imagine doing so with a book that's a
> compilation of articles, for example. I'm quite sure that the copyright
> holders would not be inter
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:13:14 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, it is so insightful that nobody wants to read it.
LOL
> A right-wing organization buys large amounts of those books for
> close to nothing, cuts off the back half and introduction, binds the
> remains into new
You're a troll.
Sex, 2006-06-30 às 16:27 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> (This is regular posting.)
>
> Q: What the fuck ... !?
>
> A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property (rights
>granted under IP license). Property in short.
The context is wild fantasies about a
(This is regular posting.)
Q: What the fuck ... !?
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property (rights
granted under IP license). Property in short.
Q: What price restrictions?
A: Property price restrictions.
Q: What 'price'? Define 'price'.
A: Cost to obtain EXISTING pr
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Apropos preemption...
>
> Looks like Wallace is going to end up in the Supreme Court with that.
Got some inquiries about Wallace's case off-band.
Wallace's case Q&A for dummies:
Q: What the fuck ... !?
A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:07:59 +0200
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Basically, it
>> > says that if you have a legal copy of a copyrighted work, you do
>> > *NOT* need the permission of t
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:07:59 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Basically, it
> > says that if you have a legal copy of a copyrighted work, you do
> > *NOT* need the permission of the copyright owner to distribute it.
> >
> > This is why
Qui, 2006-06-29 às 19:52 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
>Yes. If you buy a book, you can sell your copy. That is what first
>sale is about - the copyright holder can control copying, but once
>a copy has been sold (lawfully acquired), the copyright holder
>cannot control what is
Qui, 2006-06-29 às 20:17 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >
> > Qui, 2006-06-29 Ã s 19:35 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > > > Downloading the same program 500 times with the purpose of distributing
> > > > these copies (and which results in exactly the
Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alfred
> M. Szmidt wrote:
>>How about a link to this legislation, GNUtian ams?
>>
>> Sure, copyright law. But I doubt that you are familiar with that.
>
> Try 17 USC 109.
>
> This is the codification of the first sale do
19 matches
Mail list logo
