[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:51:40 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > One significant effect of ยง 109(a) is to limit the exclusive right
>> > to distribute copies to their first voluntary disposition, and thus
>> > negate copyright owner control over further or .downstream. transfer
>> > to a third party. Quality King Distrib. v. L.Anza Research Int.l,
>> > Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 142-44 (1998).
>> "Copy" in this context means a tangible copy.  You are not allowed to
>> produce copies of your own, merely to pass on a tangible copy that you
>> received for [... dak's spouting "consideration" nonsense again ...]
> < quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >
> Time Warner, Inc.:
>   We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an 
>   authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in 
>   lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.

Ok, so once you have downloaded software legally onto your computer
(from an authorized source to your computer), you may sell your
computer including that software, since your computer is now the
location of the tangible copy.

> Library Associations:
>   First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can 
>   result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally 
>   engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a 
>   tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright 
>   owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work 
>   to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time 
>   Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
>   on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the 
>   first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the 
>   literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
>   provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose" 
>   and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion 
>   because of changing habits due to new inventions and 
>   discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 
>   151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale 
>   doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property 
>   throughout society.

Again, you are free to sell your computer that now is carrying the
tangible copy of the software which you downloaded from an authorized

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]