[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls the GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.

On Thursday 14 July 2005 03:21 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:49:42 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I think what he's saying is roughly: 1: if A has no license to
> > distribute the software, puts it on a server, and B downloads it, why
> > is B guilty of copyright infringement if it's A who lacked a license
> > to distribute; or 2: why is B *not* guilty of copyright infringement
> > if A has a license to distribute but B does not?"
> >
> > #1 is "why is the Napster downloader guilty"; I don't have an answer
> > #to that
> > (though I believe that's only due to my poor understanding of
> > copyright law, and not evidence supporting Sean's argument).  The
> > sender might, after all, have had a license to redistribute.
> Mmmmh, let me analyse things in a different scenario.
> Suppose that A is the *copyright holder* and distributes his/her work
> through a web server. Suppose that the work is proprietary with no
> license at all ("All Rights Reserved").
>   A practical example could be some proprietary mp3 music files that are
>   downloadable from the record company's website (say for promotional
>   purposes).
> B finds the work while surfing the web and downloads it. The work is
> undistributable: B cannot redistribute to anyone else. Nor B can prepare
> derivative works or distribute them to anyone else.
> But B does *not* perform any of these operations.
> B has simply downloaded and (privately) enjoyed the work.
>   In the above example, J. Random Headbanger downloads and listens to
>   the mp3 music files. But he does nothing else with them.
> Is there any copyright infringement in this scenario?
> I would say no, there isn't any.
> If this is correct: why do I need a license to download a GPL'd work, if
> J. Random Headbanger does not need any to download proprietary music?

Possibly...  I really don't know.  I think the question is worth exploring.  I 
don't think that Specht v. Netscape is helpful here because it was a contract 
relating to terms outside of copyright and had a whole bunch of interesting 
things wrapped into it.  If someone has a clean case out there that says this 
sort of behavior isn't "copying" and allowable, please share.

Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate & Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service & Activities Committee Interim Chair 
w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it's all right
    ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown

Reply to: