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?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpkF48vsPALe.pgp
Description: PGP signature