[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Intellectual Property II
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Intellectual Property II |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:56:29 +0100 |
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
> > sale.
>
> Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
> talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into
unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant
RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again,
what breach?
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Intellectual Property II, (continued)
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Isaac, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Isaac, 2006/02/12
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alan Mackenzie, 2006/02/12
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/12
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/16