[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:07:41 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated

<> Copyright holders
who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the
modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second
Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976),
the "unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would
constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to
any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the
proprietor of the copyright." Copyright licenses are designed to
support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or
enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and
explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar- denominated fee, is
entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation
of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license
restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to
enforce through injunctive relief.

You've already lost.

You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is filed
in the Second Circuit. The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the
federal system. I hope and pray that the SFLC cites to the CAFC. It will
be a real treat to see a federal district court judge rolling on the
floor laughing before dismissing the case.

In a recent case in the Southern District of New York, Yurman Studio,
Inc. v. Castaneda, 07 Civ. 1241 (SAS)(S.D.N.Y. November 19, 2008),
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin reminds us of the well settled
principle that "At the end of the day, 'statutory damages should bear
some relation to actual damages suffered' [citing RSO Records v. Peri,
596 F.Supp. 849,862 (SDNY 1984); New Line Cinema Corp. v. Russ Berrie &
Co., 161 F.Supp.2d 293,303 (SDNY 2001); 4 Nimmer Sec. 14.04[E][1] at
14-90(2005)] and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'"

RJack :)

reply via email to

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