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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> Sure. The defendants didn't do any copying, and the first

A copy made under license also falls under 17 USC 109 if/when the
licensor doesn't retain the title to the copy made.

"Feel free to make a single a copy of my work."

This license has a scope limitation (only one copy). Note that the
licensor doesn't retain the title to the copy made.

The copy made under the license falls under first sale.

> sale doctrine did away with restrictions on redistribution.
> 
> > The pivotal issue was whether the copies sold by the defendant were
>  > copies which had been the subject of a first sale, thereby terminating
>  > their statutory protection:
> 
> Wells was decided before the language of "lawfully made under
> this title" was law.

That does not matter. Wells has nothing to do with importation of copies
made abroad. There is no connection to the recent Omega case. 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_109

The drafters provided some clear examples and explanations regarding
contract v. copyright:

"A library that has acquired ownership of a copy is entitled to lend it
under any conditions it chooses to impose. This does not mean that
conditions on future disposition of copies or phonorecords, imposed by a
contract between their buyer and seller, would be unenforceable between
the parties as a breach of contract, but it does mean that they could
not be enforced by an action for infringement of copyright."

regards,
alexander.

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(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.)