Re: Psystar/Apple/First sale on Groklaw

[David Kastrup]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the point. If you are an owner of a computer program
>>> copyright, and license someone else to make a copy of your work on
>>> a physical medium that is owned by the licensee then
>>> "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3)" gives the
>>> licensee (the lawful owner) of that copy of a computer program the
>>> right to dispose of that copy as long is it a transfer of ownership
>>> but not by rental, lease, or lending.
>>
>>> It's the PHYSICAL MEDIUM and not the MESSENGER that counts!
>>
>> Yes.  But is that transfer of ownership not still subject to the
>> license conditions?
>
> Absoluely not! The only conditions applicable to that lawfully made
> physical copy after first sale are the constraints imposed by the
> deault Copyright Act.
>
> You are dealing with a lawfully made physical copy.

"lawfully made" is not something that sticks and covers all in
perpetuity.  If I have a contract with a reseller about royalties per
copy, he is selling lawfully made copies.  If the reseller decides,
after selling the copies, not to actually pay any royalties and
disappears, the copies become illegitimate copies _after_ the fact and
are subject to confiscation.

In a similar vein, creating copies according to the permissions given by
the GPL does not mean that I am free to ignore the GPL after creating
the copies.

-- 
David Kastrup