Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[ZnU]

In article <4995CE3F.2EACF73E@web.de>,
 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > 
> > In article <4995AEE4.AB5BFFF5@web.de>,
> >  Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > > > > [... Verizon webserver transmitting from an Actiontec site ...]
> > > > > And how that would make Verizon any less a distributor of that content
> > > > > just like the Actiontec itself?
> > > >
> > > > Because things are murky when it comes to deciding who is
> > > > responsible for making copies when a user asks for a download
> > > > and a web server goes to another server to ask for the content
> > > > and transmits it to the user?
> > >
> > > Nothing is murky here. The owners of both servers are doing
> > > distribution. Both are distributors.
> > 
> > Are the owners of all the routers between you and Verizon also
> > distributors?
> 
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
> 
> Verizon's distribution page (initiating/offering transmission)
> 
> http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
> 
> doesn't fall under 17 USC 512.
> 
> Don't you think so, ZnU?

It comes pretty close. It might fail on (a)(2) because Verizon seems to 
be selecting the material available, but I suspect a clever lawyer could 
manage to spin that around until a judge thought otherwise....

-- 
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
-- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no 
longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]"        -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008