[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: Rjack
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:34:51 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Doug Mentohl wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:

.. The issue at bar is the harm to the copyright holder and if he is willing to accept the result of one mechanism, i.e. the redistribution of the downloaded and authorized copy, there can be no harm found to be associated with some other mechanism
that results in exactly the same condition.

What are the legal differences in a) downloading directly to a DVD and/or b) downloading to the hard drive and then copying to a
 DVD. Please quote all relevant legislation in any jurisdiction..

Your question is too complicated for a simple answer.

Accessing a publicly available URL containing an HTTP text file is
almost certainly not copyright infringement -- beyond that anything
can go. Examination of the visual presentation of the HTTP in a
browser will indicate where deeper links *may* lead. The default
rule of US copyright law is no permission means infringement. Be
careful about downloading anything other than another HTTP text file.

Copyright infringement problems arise if you click on a URL that
results in downloading a copyrighted file without permission:

"The district court further determined that plaintiffs’ exclusive
rights under § 106 were violated: “here the evidence establishes
that a majority of Napster users use the service to download and
upload copyrighted music…. And by doing that, it constitutes-the
uses constitute direct infringement of plaintiffs’ musical
compositions, recordings.” The district court also noted that “it is
pretty much acknowledged … by Napster that this is infringement.” We
agree that plaintiffs have shown that Napster users infringe at
least two of the copyright holders’ exclusive rights: the rights of
reproduction, § 106(1); and distribution, § 106(3). Napster users
who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate
plaintiffs’ distribution rights. Napster users who download files
containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction
rights.";A&M RECORDS, INC. v. NAPSTER, INC., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.

The FBI has posted HTTP web pages with *broken* links that have
lascivious descriptions of kiddie porn. Just *clicking* on that
broken link (the requesting address is logged) can result in a visit
by law enforcement with a valid search warrant investigating the
federal crime of *attempting* to download child pornography.

If it's more than an HTTP text file, *know* what you are attempting
to download and the copyright permissions required.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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