[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 06:25:44 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

ZnU wrote:
In article <>, Alexander Terekhov <> wrote:

ZnU wrote:
In article <>, Alexander Terekhov <> 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?

Verizon's distribution page (initiating/offering transmission)

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....

The Verizon lawsuit involved no registered copyrights. The copyright
infringement claims were without standing to even be heard in
federal court so 17 USC 512 is *utterly irrelevant*. If SFLC and GPL
supporters want to argue "victory" in a federal case let them file
a complaint eligible for jurisdiction under copyright law. Then let
the case proceed to trial -- something that has happened zero times.
The SFLC is trying the same tired propaganda tactics used by
"creation science" against evolution. Hyping the GPL with obviously
frivolous lawsuits isn't winning any new converts to "Free

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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