[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Wallace's reply brief

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Wallace's reply brief
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:51:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> By definition a third party is a stranger to a contract. (“It goes
> without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.”) (EEOC V.
> Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 294 (2002)). The contract term
> that purports to control (without privity) the distribution rights
> of all “all third parties to their own exclusive contributions in
> derivative and collective works creates a “right against the world”
> ? that is, in essence, a new copyright regulation. (“A copyright is
> a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast, generally affect
> only their parties; strangers may do as they please, so contracts do
> not create "exclusive rights.") (ProCD Inc. v.  Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d
> 1447, 1454 (7th Cir. 1996)).

This alone is such a hilarious piece of nonsense.  Any copyright
license applies to all legal recipients of the licensed material.
That is pretty much the whole point of licenses.  This does not create
"a new copyright regulation".

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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