Re: KDE not in Debian?
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > And run-time is post-distribution while compile-time is
> > pre-distribution, in the case of distribution of dynamically linked
> > binaries. And no copyright-based licence has anything to say about
> > what end users can do with the code they legally obtained (except
> > redistribution).
>
> We're not talking about an isolated personal action here. We're talking
> about many thousands, if not millions of copies which are distributed
> by people who know what the end result is going to be.
>
> To see what that means, check out
> http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightInfringement.html#con
Yep, I checked it out. Here it is
c. CONTRIBUTORY AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Direct participation in infringing activity is not a prerequisite for
infringement liability, as the Copyright Act grants to copyright owners not
only the right to exercise the exclusive rights, but also the right "to
authorize" the exercise of those rights. The inclusion of the right "to
authorize" was "intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of
contributory infringers" -- those who do not directly exercise the copyright
owner's rights, but "authorize" others to do so. [...]
"exercise the copyright owner's rights" means basically copying and
distributing the copyrighted material. But my main point here is that
dynamically loading into virtual memory an executable image from a legally
obtained copy of a library object file and an application executable that was
(by the distributor) dynamically linked against a copy that same library
object file and thereafter legally distributed to the user, does not infringe
"the copyright owner's [of the library] rights". We're talking about libraries
that can be publically distributed, or maybe about libraries that are not free
but which the user has purchased. Really the act of loading is not in itself
illegal. It would be if the end result would be distributed without permission
from the author of the library, but that is not the case. And a million times
no copyright infringement still makes no copyright infringement. I repeat my
question: could Microsoft forbid our "tax" the distribution of binaries that
are executable under MS Windows?
To complete the quote:
If someone has the "right and ability" to supervise the infringing action of
another, and that right and ability "coalesce with an obvious and direct
financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials -- even in
the absence of actual knowledge" that the infringement is taking place --
the "supervisor" may be held vicariously liable for the infringement.
Vicarious liability is based on a connection to the direct infringer (not
necessarily to the infringing activity).
"infringing action", "infringement", "infringer", "infringing activity", its
clear that without infringement there's no vicarious liability.
The best known copyright cases involving vicarious liability are the "dance
hall" cases, where vicarious liability was found when dance hall owners
allowed the unauthorized public performance of musical works by the bands
they hired, even when the owners had no knowledge of the infringements and
had even expressly warned the bands not to perform copyrighted works without
a license from the copyright owners.
I maintain that unless the distribution of dynamically linked binaries itself
is considered a copyright infringement, there's no vicarious liability either.
And to come back to the static/dynamic distinction: an obvious and
relevant difference with distribution of statically linked binaries is that
the user can execute those without also having the library object file.
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
Reply to: