[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:55:53 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)

Rex Ballard wrote:
On May 16, 2:52 pm, David Kastrup <> wrote:
RJack <> writes:
7 wrote:
RJack the stupid 1 wrote:

You are confused.  Modification even in uncreative ways is not a
right granted by copyright.

Actually, by default, ANY modification is a "derivative work" and all
rights to derivative works including the right to create and distribute them - are controlled by the copyright owner. The copyright owner may grant some permission to release derivative works - such as the BSD license, but these permissions must be granted explicitly.

The whole point of the Revised Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1994 was to limit the ability of Judges to
 define "fair use" at their discresssion.

Actually, the central goal of Congress concerning fair use was stated in
the House of Representatives' Report HR No. 94-1476. The courts were
given flexibility within the statutory guidelines:

"General intention behind the provision

The statement of the fair use doctrine in section 107 offers some
guidance to users in determining when the principles of the doctrine
apply. However, the endless variety of situations and combinations of
circumstances that can rise in particular cases precludes the
formulation of exact rules in the statute. The bill endorses the purpose
and general scope of the judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no
disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a
period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory
explanation of what fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to
it, their courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular
situations on a case-by-case basis. Section 107 is intended to restate
the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or
enlarge it in any way."

It's worth noting that it was BECAUSE of the Revised Copyright Act of
 1976 that Microsoft was able to exist and thrive the way it did.

If the basis for this summary judgement were allowed to stand as
legal precedent, based on the current lack of evidence that the
software was not "work for hire" - the lack of a negotiated contract
does not make it work for hire, because the defendant acknowledges
that they were still in progress of negotiating the contract, and
that contract negotiation broke down when the terms of the interim
agreement were changed.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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