Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/16/2010 2:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > > You made a blanket comment that US law does not recognize the
> > > value of moral rights.
> >
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html
> >
> > "Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a
> > "work of visual art." For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes
> > paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing
> > in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered
> > copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have
> > been taken for exhibition purposes only. VARA only protects works
> > of "recognized stature;" posters, maps, globes, motion pictures,
> > electronic publications, and applied art are among the categories
> > of visual works explicitly excluded from VARA protection.
> >
> > The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the 
> > definition of "works of visual art," thereby excluding such works
> > from VARA protection. "
>
> Thank you for providing a confirming link that US law does recognize
> the value of moral rights.

Computer programs are not works of visual art. What is exactly your
goal? To deflect attention from the fact that the SFLC BusyBox lawsuits
are abject failures? That a copyright license is a contract? To confuse
folks concerning the fact that the GPL is unenforceable dure to lack of
article III standing?

Sincerely,
RJack :)