[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscan

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:01:48 -0000

RJack wrote:
> Since there will be a rush to declare that all software is licensed and
> the tangible medium (the copy) is only leased, *ALL HELL WILL BREAK
> LOOSE* when those states with retail sales taxes find they can no longer
> collect the tax levied on retail software sales. That'll be fun to watch.
> When a potential copyright licensee is legally authorized under 17 USC
> 106(2) to copy software onto a physical medium that he already owns,
> there can be no question that the licensee owns that copy. There will

Since GNUtards believe that GPL licensees must follow the GPL ('not a
contract') instead of invoking first sale they must believe that copies
are not owned by GPL licensees. GNUtards believe in all sort of silly

> be very few situations (think internet delivery) where an original
> copyright owner actually owns the physical medium in which a copy is
> first embedded. This decision will not have much impact on the software
> market as a whole.

We've got the on our side RJack:

"There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies
in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a
digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy
disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109."


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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