Ineiev wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 02:58 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Ineiev wrote:
> >> On 10/10/2012 10:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >>> If so be advised that the GPL doesn't fulfil Russian requirements for IP
> >>> licenses in general...
> >> Why?
> > Read the entire chapter 69 (Part 4***) of Russian Civil Code.
> > Read especially carefully articles such as 1235 ("License Contract")...
> > Finally, study twice article 160.
> Could you be more specific? what requirements are not fulfilled
> and what does it imply?
Can't be enforced against licensee.
> > [... "it is copying" ...]
> > For the upteenth time: the act of copying is perfectly fine and
> > unrestricted under the GPL and other public licenses.
> > What is so hard to understand here?
> It is hard to understand how article 1272 may be relevant when
> you download GCC. what you get is a copy you've made yourself,
> it wasn't sold or alienated by the copyright holder. I can't
See for example:
http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/specht%20district%20court.pdf
"SmartDownload is available from Netscape’s web site free of charge.
Before downloading the software, the user need not view any license
agreement terms or even any reference to a license agreement, and
need not do anything to manifest assent to such a license agreement
ther than actually taking possession of the product. From the
user’s vantage point, SmartDownload could be analogized to a free
neighborhood newspaper, readily obtained from a sidewalk box or
supermarket counter without any exchange with a seller or vender.
It is there for the taking."
See also:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
"There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies
in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a
digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy
disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109."
And:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply008.pdf
"First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
result in the fixation of a tangible copy.1 By intentionally
engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
tangible copy is made on the recipient’s computer, copyright
owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
provision “must be construed in light of its basic purpose”
and “should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
because of changing habits due to new inventions and
discoveries.” Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
151, 156-158 (1975).
The basic purpose of the first sale doctrine is to facilitate
the continued flow of property throughout society. The common
law doctrine pre-dates even the 1909 Copyright Act, and
judicial analysis has consistently focused on the scope of the
property interest that has been transferred, not the nature of
the land or chattel that is the object of that property
interest.2
1 Time Warner notes: “The initial downloading of a copy, from
an authorized source to a purchaser’s computer, can result in
lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium. If the
purchaser does not make and retain a second copy, further
transfer of that copy on such medium would fall within the
scope of the first sale doctrine.” Time Warner Comments at 3.
2 See, e.g., Henry Bill Publishing Co. v. Smythe, 27 F. 914,
925 (S.D. Ohio 1886) (“The owner of the copyright may not be
able to transfer the entire property in one of his copies, and
retain for himself an incidental power to authorize a sale of
that copy...and yet he may be entirely able, so long as he
retains the ownership of a particular copy for himself, to
find abundant protection under the copyright statute for his
then incidental power of controlling its sale.... A genuine
copy...carries with it the ordinary incidents of alienation
belonging alike to all property.”); Step-Saver Data Systems,
Inc. v. Wyse Technology and The Software Link, Inc., 939 F.
2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991) (applying a functional analysis to
determine the scope of the property interest transferred and
invalidating a box-top software license on grounds that it was
properly considered proposed—but rejected—contract terms.)"
