[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitC

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Jacobsen v Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 overruled by the US Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:05:42 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7

On 12/21/2010 9:48 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
that breach of a "condition" not to use bots doesn't violate the
copyright act. Why do you think that a copyleft "condition" not to
restrict users downstream should be treated any differently?

Because the court itself said so:
     For instance, ToU § 4(D) forbids creation of derivative works
     based on WoW without Blizzard’s consent. A player who violates
     this prohibition would exceed the scope of her license and
     violate one of Blizzard’s exclusive rights under the Copyright
     Act. In contrast, ToU § 4(C)(ii) prohibits a player’s disruption
     of another player’s game experience. Id. A player might violate
     this prohibition while playing the game by harassing another
     player with unsolicited instant messages. Although this conduct
     may violate the contractual covenants with Blizzard, it would
     not violate any of Blizzard’s exclusive rights of copyright.

Copyleft licenses impose conditions on how works may may be copied
and distributed, which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder
under the copyright act.

The copyleft enforcement theory based on copyright-not-a-contract
silliness is authoritatively dead under MDY precedent.

As usual, you are wrong. The court decision explicitly says that
copyright infringement is a possible result of license violation.
It is the nature of the license violations that determine this.

reply via email to

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