As for the statement "copyright 'rights' are not 'natural' rights", I respectfully disagree. I feel confident that creations covered by copyright could be declared property of the creator and therefore subject to the property rights extended to citizens.
Well, I'm affraid, you are falling for this (quite) new fashion of "intelectual property" mantra...
Certainly, I'm not going to compete by chanting "information want's to be free":-) but maybe you should read again this passage from your Constitution, that is a base for all the patent and copyright law...
Hint: limited (or even unlimited) monopoly does not constitute a property...
Well, obviously IANAL, and even not from US, but I would argue, you cannot interpret *your* law correctly:
Wouldn't a law that presumes to so enumerate "only" those rights run afowl of the 9th Amendment?
Copyright "rights" are not "natural" rights, and are not given in your Constitution. They are specifically granted by Congress, and as such I believe must be stated explicitely and are not subject to 9th Amendment.
I'm thinking of open/copylefted music which is permitted (i.e., licensed) for all use, As has been stated by parent poster, this not requires permission...
alteration and distribution Title 17, 106(2): "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;"
provided creation/origination is acknowledged. This is regulated in Title 17 section 106A, and also is a contractual condition for granting rights stated above...
This discussion is getting little old now, but I'll post anyway;-)
It's intention is mostly irrelevant.
Agree, but I'm not talking about intentions, rather trying to explain in layman's words, what's in there.
It never says it applies only to the patent-holder(s).
And I'm not saying either. I'm talking about the *lincense* holder, i.e. licensee.
You're absolutely right... "DISTRIBUTE" is exactly what I'm refering to.
OK, I may mistunderstand you at one moment.
Then, to clerify my point, as I see you missed it...
The whole GPL forbids you to place additional limitations (i.e . over what it is already in GPL) on the parties you distribute the (modified) GPL program to. Let's assume (for the sake of discussion, and I tend to agree with this) that the same applies to the original author who decides to place his program under GPL. If then, you buy a license to a patent, which includes terms which would allow *you* to distribute a GPL program using patented technology, but these terms do not alow your customers to freely distribute the program (i.e. without a fee), then you still cannot distribute this program under GPL.
Back to MPlayer example... There are millions of patents in this world, and actually, you'll never know whether your program is not infringing on some of them until you receive nice C&D letter from company X. Then, my point is, that either MPlayer developers haven't received such C&D letter, or having received one decided, that it doesn't have any merit, or something like that, so they believe they still have the rights to distribute the program without limitations and hence they comply with GPL.
Then again, if they received a court order to stop distribution (the only way to be sure they are infringing on a valid patent) and they are still distributing, then, sure, they are breaking themselves GPL terms. I haven't heard about it though...
Or do they bought a license to the patent(s) you mention, that does not allow royality-free redistribution?
Yes, of course, I know this clause. It is there to cover a situation, where you are holding a particular patent licence allowing you to distribute a program using patented technology and said patent license does not allow further redistribution on GPL terms.
OTOH, if you believe you can distribute the program without any patent license (and you implicitly demonstrate that belief by distributing the program), then it implies the other party may be able to also distribute the program on GPL terms. At least you are not imposing such limitations on the other party - that is what GPL forbids.
As you do not provide warranty, you have no obligations to check whether the party you are distributing the program to has a legal rights to use this program under particular jurisdiction.
The GPL only governs rights to copy, modify or distribute the program - not the rights to use the technology embeded in the program.
As point 11 states - entire risk is with the user. And this is the only danger of using GPL programs.
By distributing it from a country where it violates patents, they are violating the terms of the GPL.
No, you are wrong. The only restriction that GPL places on a users and distributors (not the original authors) is that you must redistribute source with binaries. You do not have to make any assertions regarding possible patent claims etc.
On the contrary - the software comes (usually) without warranty of any kind.
If you are an original author, the point 8 of the lincense allows you (or even encourages you) to place regional distribution limitations, if you know of any patent or other law conflicts, but you do not have to do this.
Thus, distribution from US may possibly make MPlayer authors guilty of some patent violations, but unless there is a court order issued to them, there is nothing that prevents them from doing so. Certainly, nothing in the GPL...
If you still think otherwise, please be more specific and quote relevant parts of the GPL.
The fact that Kazaa has not ever tried to limit the music swapping is proof that they should be found guilty of at least neglegence.
Just because you provide a warhouse where people can trade goods, if the goods are mostly stolen property, and you know that, you are in deep shit.
While yes, kazaa is primarily used to swap copyrighted music, and I'm sure its developers know this, I don't see any way the program itself can distinguish between legal (distributed with proper consent) and illegal (i.e. distributed withouth a consent of a copyright holder) music. It's just exactly the same stream of bits.
Thus, you have to allow it to exist, or disband the whole p2p (and internet) alltogether.
And btw. copyright violation is diffrent than stealing - I would say its like "artificial" stealing, as copyright is an artificial poroperty. So your comparison doesn't quite hold.
Hmmm... no. The Polish court system is the one, where when you finally got all of the judges, jury, plantifs, defendants, atorneys and clerks together in the same courtroom on the same time and date, they cannot start the process, because all the documentation get lost somehow...
Open source only works if you want a piece of software that is good for everyone. Noone is going to come and write my factory control and admin system for free, even if they can give away the source afterwards.
You are messing up two different things. Nobody is ever goint to write something for free unless he has some other/personal usage/reason for it. So, yes, nobody is going to write some application for you for free.
But the point of OSS, and especially GNU, is quite different. When you are going to pay somebody do write an app for you, and you decide to go OSS way, the developer can use a quite big building block base - existing OSS, and get things done faster. Then when the whole thing is released back into OSS, the community has even bigger building blocks database next time a new app is needed.
Also, please note, that patents generally are not international, and for example in Europe patents for bussines methods cannot be obtained. So this particular patent would not affect European companies, that do not do some bussines in US. But it will affect American companies creating mess there.
Re:Not as cool as... a Playable Harpsichord!
on
Lego Segway
·
· Score: 1
Maybe it's only me, but I immediately read this as godot.net. - thanks Google:)
And I surely believe this prophecy to come true and Godot won't come;-)
Slashdot Mirror
As for the statement "copyright 'rights' are not 'natural' rights", I respectfully disagree. I feel confident that creations covered by copyright could be declared property of the creator and therefore subject to the property rights extended to citizens.
:-) but maybe you should read again this passage from your Constitution, that is a base for all the patent and copyright law...
Well, I'm affraid, you are falling for this (quite) new fashion of "intelectual property" mantra...
Certainly, I'm not going to compete by chanting "information want's to be free"
Hint: limited (or even unlimited) monopoly does not constitute a property...
Well, obviously IANAL, and even not from US, but I would argue, you cannot interpret *your* law correctly:
Wouldn't a law that presumes to so enumerate "only" those rights run afowl of the 9th Amendment?
Copyright "rights" are not "natural" rights, and are not given in your Constitution. They are specifically granted by Congress, and as such I believe must be stated explicitely and are not subject to 9th Amendment.
I'm thinking of open/copylefted music which is permitted (i.e., licensed) for all use,
As has been stated by parent poster, this not requires permission...
alteration and distribution
Title 17, 106(2):
" to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; "
provided creation/origination is acknowledged.
This is regulated in Title 17 section 106A, and also is a contractual condition for granting rights stated above...
This discussion is getting little old now, but I'll post anyway ;-)
It's intention is mostly irrelevant.
Agree, but I'm not talking about intentions, rather trying to explain in layman's words, what's in there.
It never says it applies only to the patent-holder(s).
And I'm not saying either. I'm talking about the *lincense* holder, i.e. licensee.
You're absolutely right... "DISTRIBUTE" is exactly what I'm refering to.
OK, I may mistunderstand you at one moment.
Then, to clerify my point, as I see you missed it...
The whole GPL forbids you to place additional limitations (i.e . over what it is already in GPL) on the parties you distribute the (modified) GPL program to. Let's assume (for the sake of discussion, and I tend to agree with this) that the same applies to the original author who decides to place his program under GPL. If then, you buy a license to a patent, which includes terms which would allow *you* to distribute a GPL program using patented technology, but these terms do not alow your customers to freely distribute the program (i.e. without a fee), then you still cannot distribute this program under GPL.
Back to MPlayer example... There are millions of patents in this world, and actually, you'll never know whether your program is not infringing on some of them until you receive nice C&D letter from company X. Then, my point is, that either MPlayer developers haven't received such C&D letter, or having received one decided, that it doesn't have any merit, or something like that, so they believe they still have the rights to distribute the program without limitations and hence they comply with GPL.
Then again, if they received a court order to stop distribution (the only way to be sure they are infringing on a valid patent) and they are still distributing, then, sure, they are breaking themselves GPL terms. I haven't heard about it though...
Or do they bought a license to the patent(s) you mention, that does not allow royality-free redistribution?
br, szelus
Yes, of course, I know this clause. It is there to cover a situation, where you are holding a particular patent licence allowing you to distribute a program using patented technology and said patent license does not allow further redistribution on GPL terms.
OTOH, if you believe you can distribute the program without any patent license (and you implicitly demonstrate that belief by distributing the program), then it implies the other party may be able to also distribute the program on GPL terms. At least you are not imposing such limitations on the other party - that is what GPL forbids.
As you do not provide warranty, you have no obligations to check whether the party you are distributing the program to has a legal rights to use this program under particular jurisdiction.
The GPL only governs rights to copy, modify or distribute the program - not the rights to use the technology embeded in the program.
As point 11 states - entire risk is with the user. And this is the only danger of using GPL programs.
By distributing it from a country where it violates patents, they are violating the terms of the GPL.
No, you are wrong. The only restriction that GPL places on a users and distributors (not the original authors) is that you must redistribute source with binaries. You do not have to make any assertions regarding possible patent claims etc.
On the contrary - the software comes (usually) without warranty of any kind.
If you are an original author, the point 8 of the lincense allows you (or even encourages you) to place regional distribution limitations, if you know of any patent or other law conflicts, but you do not have to do this.
Thus, distribution from US may possibly make MPlayer authors guilty of some patent violations, but unless there is a court order issued to them, there is nothing that prevents them from doing so.
Certainly, nothing in the GPL...
If you still think otherwise, please be more specific and quote relevant parts of the GPL.
The fact that Kazaa has not ever tried to limit the music swapping is proof that they should be found guilty of at least neglegence.
Just because you provide a warhouse where people can trade goods, if the goods are mostly stolen property, and you know that, you are in deep shit.
While yes, kazaa is primarily used to swap copyrighted music, and I'm sure its developers know this, I don't see any way the program itself can distinguish between legal (distributed with proper consent) and illegal (i.e. distributed withouth a consent of a copyright holder) music. It's just exactly the same stream of bits.
Thus, you have to allow it to exist, or disband the whole p2p (and internet) alltogether.
And btw. copyright violation is diffrent than stealing - I would say its like "artificial" stealing, as copyright is an artificial poroperty.
So your comparison doesn't quite hold.
Are you sure that's not a Polish court system?
Hmmm... no. The Polish court system is the one, where when you finally got all of the judges, jury, plantifs, defendants, atorneys and clerks together in the same courtroom on the same time and date, they cannot start the process, because all the documentation get lost somehow...
And yes. I'm Polish...
Open source only works if you want a piece of software that is good for everyone. Noone is going to come and write my factory control and admin system for free, even if they can give away the source afterwards.
You are messing up two different things. Nobody is ever goint to write something for free unless he has some other/personal usage/reason for it. So, yes, nobody is going to write some application for you for free.
But the point of OSS, and especially GNU, is quite different. When you are going to pay somebody do write an app for you, and you decide to go OSS way, the developer can use a quite big building block base - existing OSS, and get things done faster. Then when the whole thing is released back into OSS, the community has even bigger building blocks database next time a new app is needed.
Also, please note, that patents generally are not international, and for example in Europe patents for bussines methods cannot be obtained.
So this particular patent would not affect European companies, that do not do some bussines in US. But it will affect American companies creating mess there.
At least, his server stands up to Slashdot! :-)
Maybe it's only me, but I immediately read this as godot.net. - thanks Google :)
And I surely believe this prophecy to come true and Godot won't come ;-)