Re: 'Nuther voluntary dismissal contemplated

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Actually, I am with Terekhov on that one.  The technical details of the
> underlying traffic don't change the legal nature of who makes available
> something that much.

But who says that "making available" is violating copyright at all?
Some courts have found that it isn't. We may be in a situation where
the only person who is guilty of violating the GPL is the person who
requests the download! Remember that the cases that have been brought
by the SFLC are ones where software is physically distributed.

You're agreeing with Terekhov because you would like all manner of
things which may not be copyright violations to be included under
copyright and thus the GPL; recall the discussion we had a while ago
about derivative works and dynamic linking.

That's why I say that the only way of really determining whether
Verizon is in violation is to do legal discovery so that the exact
details of the transfer mechanism are known, and then have a court
sort out the legalities involved. If the copyright holders don't
want to pursue that, then it's going to remain ambiguous.