[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:08:34 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 2:35 PM, RJack wrote:
"Not necessary" is a dodge -- not an answer.

No dodge. Simply find a court that agrees with you on one of the many
open licenses.

If you can't legally define an "open" license, then don't refer to
an "open" license in a legal context. You're not allowed to make up
your own law or facts.

Any one of them, from the list.

Again, why is an "open" license different from any other copyright license?

Open licenses give have pass-through permissions, so that recipients
of covered works are able to further copy and distribute them,
provided that such action complies with the condition of the license.
Other copyright permission tends to be in the form of a contract
between the rights holder and a second party to whom permission is
granted, but does not grant further permission to anyone else.

You can make up great sounding pseudo legal terms

No making up. The Artistic License is an open license, in the sense
above of having pass-through provisions, and CAFC found that copying
and distributing work covered by it is infringement if its conditions
are not honored. Simply find another case where a court has not
upheld such provisions.

The Copyright Act's "pass-through permissions" provision eh?
Sing it to the choir Hyman, just sing it to the choir.

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

RJack :)

reply via email to

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