Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:47:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > We have a license to distribute said material and we are abiding by the terms
> > of the license. You might as well say that book publishers are contributing
> > to infringement because books are so easy to photocopy.
>
> Except book publishers have hundreds of years of track record where
> books were not easy to photocopy. So it's hard to see how you can
> draw this analogy. What did book publishers do, recently, that they
> weren't doing before, that made books easy to photocopy?
>
> Also, Napster wasn't distributing anything in violation of any copyright
> licenses, so I don't see how this argument of yours shows that that
> analogy is irrelevant.
But we are more like a book publisher than Napster. We have a license to
publish certain materials, and we do so. What the user does with the
materials after they receive them legally from us is both none of our
business and out of our control.
If we were adding pointers to 'illegal' packages that random users have
built to our web site, then you might be able to draw a comparison to
Napster. But we aren't (as far as I know).
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: