[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:31:07 +0100

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
>      While disposition of a work downloaded to a floppy disk would only
>      implicate the distribution right, the transmission of a work from
>      one person to another over the Internet results in a reproduction
>      on the recipient’s computer, even if the sender subsequently deletes
>      the original copy of the work. This activity therefore entails an
>      exercise of an exclusive right that is not covered by section 109.

Yes, the electronic forward-and-delete form of (re)distribution is not
considered to fall under 17 USC 109 by the Copyright Office given the
lack of consensus between consulted parties regarding that topic. BTW,
by the same reasoning, (re)distribution of copies (material object) by
means of

would also NOT fall under 17 USC 109. Very interesting. I just note that
Library Associations (American Library Association, Association of
Research Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, Medical
Library Association and Special Libraries Association (the "Libraries),
in response to comments submitted pursuant to the Copyright Office's
Request for Public Comment dated June 5, 2000) seem to disagree with the
U.S. Copyright Office: 

"There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital 
 form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or 
 DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical 
 copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy 
 of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a 
 floppy disk, Zip(TM) disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 

More quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf: 

Red Hat, Inc.: 

  Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to 
  impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the 
  comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think 
  someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about 
  are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109. 
  The primary difference between digital and nondigital products 
  with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently 
  licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded 
  from the Internet without the printed documentation, without 
  the box, and without the installation service. Many open source 
  and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft. 
  ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would 
  jeopardize the ability of open source and free software 
  licensor to require [blah blah] 

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. 

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. 

So what was your point, Hyman?


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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