Re: Psystar/Apple/First sale on Groklaw

[David Kastrup]

John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> writes:

> David Kastrup writes:
>> "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.
>
> Not under US law.  You can confiscate only unsold copies.  The sold
> copies were made and sold with your permission.  The fact that the guy
> never paid you is between you and him.  The buyers of the copies
> purchased them in good faith and own them free and clear.

Good faith does not help you to ownership purchasing stolen goods here.
It just defends you against criminal charges, but does not give you
ownership.

I should be surprised if things are much different over at your place.

>> 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.
>
> I don't see the similarity.  As soon as you made a copy you became a
> GPL licensee and subject to the terms of the GPL.

The act of making a copy does not make me subject to the terms of the
GPL.  I can choose to make a copy without special permission.  Whether
this copy is legally usable in some circumstances is a different
question.  It might be if I fulfill the terms of the GPL, but I have
entered no obligation to do so.

-- 
David Kastrup