Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Are you claiming that we have a license to distribute the work based
on the program Quagga which also contains and uses openssl?
If not, what are we discussing?
> 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).
I'm not trying to claim that our case is identical to Napster.
I'm trying to use Napster to show that we can't always divorce
ourselves from actions our users take.
As I understand it, action at distance is not sufficient
to absolve us of responsibility.