Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:21:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
> > > Still, so what? How is building the package locally equivalent to
> > > infringement?
> >
> > Why did Napster decide to offer a billion dollars to the
> > recording industry, to settle their copyright suit?
> > Do you think they were just smoking crack?
> >
> > Unlike us, they weren't even distributing the copyrighted
> > material in question.
>
> 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.
--
Raul
Reply to: