Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion

[amicus_curious]

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXJMRIX.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
news:gk6t8h$dbb$1@blue.rahul.net...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > I think that the issue of consideration is paramount.  The copyright
> > laws exist to protect the author's ability to benefit from the author's
> > artistic cleverness.  If the author chooses not to benefit in a
> > conventional way, the benefit that is expected must at least be defined
> > clearly enough to determine if someone's alleged violations actually
> > harm the author...
>
> No, this is complete nonsense. Copyright law exists (in the US) to
> encourage creation and dissmemination of creative works for the benefit
> of the public.  "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress
> of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
> Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
> Discoveries."
Why would anyone really care unless there were some benefit to be obtained 
by the author due to the right to control the distribution?  The copyright 
act contains language such as "...to distribute copies or phonorecords of 
the work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;", all clearly 
implying a financial value of the work and direct financial benefit to the 
author.  It is silly to suppose that the the purpose of a copyright is to 
lock up the author's work and deny the public access.

> Free software licenses fit nicely in this, because these licenses are
> designed to encourage the wide dissemination of works thus licensed. And
> I hope the JMRI attorney remembers to remind the court of this.
It would seem obvious that no license at all would fit even more nicely into 
the notion of widely disseminating some work.  The GPL has a requirement 
that someone deriving something useful from GPL licensed software disclose 
the derivation and allow for similiar unrestricted use, but that is not the 
case with these silly suits.  The only issue is that the violator has failed 
to follow the re-publication of the original source code.  None of the 
instances to date has contested any failure to disclose, which would seem to 
be the only opportunity for determining any value.

It is hard to see how such republication has any meaning for the public as 
well.  The vast majority of people buying a wireless router or similar 
device that has been the target of the SFLC lawsuits is never going to 
bother with the source code for any internal nitty-gritty of that device. 
The few who might are certainly astute enough to know all about GPL software 
and astute enough to go to the original project source for any information 
rather than some discrete hand me down copy coming from someone using the 
code in their product.


> Yes, it may reasonable to require a plaintiff to show what damages he
> has suffered, but not because that's the goal of copyright law.
>
> You are mixing up (a) the goal of copyright law and (b) the goal of this
> specific lawsuit.
> --
> Rahul
> http://rahul.rahul.net/