Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman, implicit in a copyright license is the promise not to 
> > sue for copyright infringement.
> >
> > The CAFC's suggestion that "Copyright licenses are designed to 
> > support the right to exclude" is utter nonsense.

Hyman why don't you listen to Alexander?

Copyright law as written by Congress is designed to establish the
right to exclude. *ONLY* Congress can create those "in rem" rights
to exclude. See 17 USC section 301(a).

Copyright licenses are designed to waive particular rights to
exclude so that licensees may use those personam rights granted by
the copyright owner in contractual privity

> Any promise not to sue exists only to those to whom the license 
> is granted, and only if they honor the terms of the license. You
>  are incorrect that breach of license cannot lead to suit for 
> copyright infringement. Here is exactly such a case: 
> <http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200703/court-upholds-copyright-infringement-and-unauthorized-access-claims-wh>
So what's new?

As it has been stated about one hundred times in this group, if and
only if a scope of use violation results.