Do you seriously believe that gifted copies don't fall under 'first
sale'?
Do you seriously believe that copies made with permission e.g. 'you may
make as many copies verbatim as you like and even create derivatives and
make as many copies of those as you like as well... both in exchange for
nothing' (gratis permission) don't fall under 'first sale'?
> Before you can distribute copies, you have to make them. That is only
> permitted either:
> (a) in accordance with the conditions of the copyleft licence...
And what are the 'conditions' for MAKING copies under copyleft?
Again: recall that subsequent act of eventual distribution under 'first
sale' statutory exception is irrelevant as far as copyright is
concerned.
All copyleft requirements are for the act of distribution of copies
made, not the act of making copies.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:02:55 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> Tim Jackson wrote:
> [... sale ...]
> Do you seriously believe that gifted copies don't fall under 'first
> sale'?
> Do you seriously believe that copies made with permission e.g. 'you may
> make as many copies verbatim as you like and even create derivatives and
> make as many copies of those as you like as well... both in exchange for
> nothing' (gratis permission) don't fall under 'first sale'?
Sure, I don't believe that 'first sale' is the only aspect of the exhaustion doctrine. There is more to it than just sales. I told you that Article 4(2) is just the tip of 50 years of case law on the topic of exhaustion.
But so what? You are not addressing the real issues.
E.g. that the copyright holder's right to control the making of copies - his reproduction right - is not subject to the exhaustion doctrine anyway. That's true whether or not you call it 'first sale', and whether or not it is triggered by a gift. It just doesn't apply to the *making* of copies.
So yes, certainly the copyright holder can say "you can make as many copies as you like". But he can also make that subject to conditions - as a copyleft licence does.
Since he does that under his right to control reproduction, and since that reproduction right is not subject to the exhaustion doctrine, the copyleft licence conditions continue to be effective.
And the CJEU decision only permits a replacement copy to permit the software to be used. It doesn't permit any further copies to be made.
It doesn't exhaust anything.
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:13:10 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> Tim Jackson wrote:
> [...]
> > Before you can distribute copies, you have to make them. That is only
> > permitted either:
> > (a) in accordance with the conditions of the copyleft licence...
> And what are the 'conditions' for MAKING copies under copyleft?
> Again: recall that subsequent act of eventual distribution under 'first
> sale' statutory exception is irrelevant as far as copyright is
> concerned.
> All copyleft requirements are for the act of distribution of copies
> made, not the act of making copies.
You are again forgetting that the CJEU decision does not exhaust anything. It starts from the assumption that the right to distribute *one specific copy* is *already* exhausted, and provides a mechanism to do that by making a replacement copy, the previous copy being rendered unusable.
But it doesn't permit any more widespread distribution of new copies.
It doesn't produce any further exhaustion, except for that one specific copy which is already exhausted.
Any such distribution of new copies is permitted only by the copyleft licence, under the copyleft conditions.
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> So yes, certainly the copyright holder can say "you can make as many
> copies as you like". But he can also make that subject to conditions -
> as a copyleft licence does.
Hey, I've downloaded GCC binary package and made several copies of it...
what are the GPL 'conditions' that I should have fulfilled for the act
of making copies?
The answer is 'no conditions for the act of making copies' and you
simply don't want to admit it.
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:13:10 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> > Tim Jackson wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Before you can distribute copies, you have to make them. That is only
> > > permitted either:
> > > (a) in accordance with the conditions of the copyleft licence...
> > And what are the 'conditions' for MAKING copies under copyleft?
> > Again: recall that subsequent act of eventual distribution under 'first
> > sale' statutory exception is irrelevant as far as copyright is
> > concerned.
> > All copyleft requirements are for the act of distribution of copies
> > made, not the act of making copies.
> You are again forgetting that the CJEU decision does not exhaust
> anything. It starts from the assumption that the right to distribute
> *one specific copy* is *already* exhausted, and provides a mechanism to
> do that by making a replacement copy, the previous copy being rendered
> unusable.
> But it doesn't permit any more widespread distribution of new copies.
> It doesn't produce any further exhaustion, except for that one specific
> copy which is already exhausted.
> Any such distribution of new copies is permitted only by the copyleft
> licence, under the copyleft conditions.
Hey, I've downloaded GCC binary package and made several copies of it...
what are the GPL 'conditions' that I should have fulfilled for the act
of making copies?
The answer is 'no conditions for the act of making copies' and you
simply don't want to admit it.
As far as distribution is concerned all new copies that I've made are
lawfully made (with the GPL permission to reproduce) and since I own the
copies that I've made I'm going to distribute these new copies under
'first sale' exception to the exclusive distribution right utterly
ignoring the GPL 'conditions' for distribution as if the GPL would not
pretend to convey any distribution right at all.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:51:54 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> Tim Jackson wrote:
> [...]
> > So yes, certainly the copyright holder can say "you can make as many
> > copies as you like". But he can also make that subject to conditions -
> > as a copyleft licence does.
> Hey, I've downloaded GCC binary package and made several copies of it...
> what are the GPL 'conditions' that I should have fulfilled for the act
> of making copies?
> The answer is 'no conditions for the act of making copies' and you
> simply don't want to admit it.
But you can only distribute those copies in accordance with the GPL conditions.
Likewise, if the CJEU decision was about GPL'd software you could download and make copies under the GPL. But you wouldn't be allowed to distribute them except under the GPL conditions.
Your permission to do these things comes entirely from the GPL, not from the decision.
The CJEU decision just gives one person a right to make and use a replacement copy of the software, but not to make or distribute further copies. This is much less than he already had from the GPL anyway.
As an independent third party, the decision gives you nothing.
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:51:54 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> > Tim Jackson wrote:
> > [...]
> > > So yes, certainly the copyright holder can say "you can make as many
> > > copies as you like". But he can also make that subject to conditions -
> > > as a copyleft licence does.
> > Hey, I've downloaded GCC binary package and made several copies of it...
> > what are the GPL 'conditions' that I should have fulfilled for the act
> > of making copies?
> > The answer is 'no conditions for the act of making copies' and you
> > simply don't want to admit it.
> But you can only distribute those copies in accordance with the GPL
> conditions.
Nope, distribution under 'first sale' exception is good enough for me.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:06:33 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> As far as distribution is concerned all new copies that I've made are
> lawfully made (with the GPL permission to reproduce) and since I own the
> copies that I've made I'm going to distribute these new copies under
> 'first sale' exception to the exclusive distribution right utterly
> ignoring the GPL 'conditions' for distribution as if the GPL would not
> pretend to convey any distribution right at all.
There you go again, assuming that the European exhaustion doctrine stems from whether the copy is 'lawfully made'. It doesn't. It stems from whether the copy has been placed on the European market by or with the consent of the copyright holder.
The copies you've just made are still sitting on your hard drive or wherever. They have not yet been placed on the market. Therefore no rights have yet been exhausted.
When you do come to distribute them, you propose to ignore the GPL conditions. The copyright holder has not consented to them being placed on the market like that. Therefore still no rights have been exhausted.
And you are infringing the copyright (because you don't have permission under the GPL to act that way.)
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:07:56 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> Tim Jackson wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:51:54 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> > > Hey, I've downloaded GCC binary package and made several copies of it...
> > > what are the GPL 'conditions' that I should have fulfilled for the act
> > > of making copies?
> > But you can only distribute those copies in accordance with the GPL
> > conditions.
> Nope, distribution under 'first sale' exception is good enough for me.
OK, those consider those copies that you've just made on your own computer, that you've not yet distributed. When were they first sold?
They haven't been, you've only just made them. Why then do you believe that they benefit from a 'first sale' exception?
More accurately, when were those copies you've just made first placed on the European market with the consent of the copyright holder? They haven't been, you've only just made them. Why then do you believe that they benefit from any exhaustion of the distribution right?
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> More accurately, when were those copies you've just made first placed on
> the European market with the consent of the copyright holder? They
> haven't been, you've only just made them. Why then do you believe that
> they benefit from any exhaustion of the distribution right?
Providing access to copyrighted work with permission to make copies
directly by recipients instead of 'trading' material objects with
copyrighted work fixed on/in them doesn't change the status of copies
lawfully made (no matter who made them) and owned by strangers with
respect to copyright and further distribution under doctrine of
exhaustion -- in both cases copies fall under exception to the exclusive
distribution right.
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:19:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> Providing access to copyrighted work with permission to make copies
> directly by recipients instead of 'trading' material objects with
> copyrighted work fixed on/in them doesn't change the status of copies
> lawfully made
What it doesn't change is the fact that whether they are "lawfully made" is irrelevant.
> (no matter who made them) and owned by strangers with
> respect to copyright and further distribution under doctrine of
> exhaustion -- in both cases copies fall under exception to the exclusive
> distribution right.
It follows that that's wrong too.
I've given you the reasons for all this many times over. I'm not going to repeat them any further.
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:19:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> > Providing access to copyrighted work with permission to make copies
> > directly by recipients instead of 'trading' material objects with
> > copyrighted work fixed on/in them doesn't change the status of copies
> > lawfully made
> What it doesn't change is the fact that whether they are "lawfully
> made" is irrelevant.
It is certainly explicitly relevant with respect to at least U.S.A based
copyleft licensors such as the FSF (in my example I was talking about
FSF owned GCC) because the governing IP laws are the IP laws of the
United States of America, such as:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a
particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any
person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of
the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of
that copy or phonorecord. ..."
The phrase "lawfully made under this title" essentially means that the
copy is not infringing, either because it was made by the copyright
owner / with the permission of the copyright owner or it falls within
one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's reproduction rights.
And if you seriously believe that EU version of 'first sale' is somehow
very very different from US version then go to doctor.
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:38:39 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> And if you seriously believe that EU version of 'first sale' is somehow
> very very different from US version then go to doctor.
It now appears that not only have you not understood the differences between the EU exhaustion of rights doctrine, and the US 'first sale' doctrine, but neither have you fully understood the US doctrine.
(Hint: Differences include the fact that one uses the term "lawfully made" while the other doesn't. Similarities include the fact that both relate only to the sale or transfer or other disposal of "that copy".
Not to the creation of new copies from it.)
But I've had enough of this. We've been over this many times. You're not listening. Goodbye.
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> (Hint: Differences include the fact that one uses the term "lawfully
> made" while the other doesn't. Similarities include the fact that both
> relate only to the sale or transfer or other disposal of "that copy".
> Not to the creation of new copies from it.)
Uhh, silly Jackson... again: creation of new copies in the case of GCC
is perfectly fine and unrestricted thanks to the GPL's reproduction
permission.
As for the rest, go send a patch to wikipedia... <chuckles>
Main articles: First-sale doctrine and Exhaustion of rights
Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling
legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those
copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the
copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a
copyrighted book or CD. "
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:45:24 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> Tim Jackson wrote:
> [...]
> > (Hint: Differences include the fact that one uses the term "lawfully
> > made" while the other doesn't. Similarities include the fact that both
> > relate only to the sale or transfer or other disposal of "that copy".
> > Not to the creation of new copies from it.)
> Uhh, silly Jackson... again: creation of new copies in the case of GCC
> is perfectly fine and unrestricted thanks to the GPL's reproduction
> permission.
But that still doesn't support your argument. I've had enough of explaining why. Goodbye.
> As for the rest, go send a patch to wikipedia... <chuckles>
> "The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights
> Main articles: First-sale doctrine and Exhaustion of rights
> Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling
> legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those
> copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the
> copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a
> copyrighted book or CD. "
And this doesn't support your argument either. Again, I've had enough of explaining why. Goodbye.
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> But that still doesn't support your argument. I've had enough of
> explaining why. Goodbye.
A perfectly legitimate copy (as of time of reproduction) just can't
somehow become infringing by subsequent act of distribution of THAT copy
under terms and conditions that you don't like, silly. That's what
"first sale" / exhaustion is about. (The idea is that copyright owner
can "sell" copies (material objects) made by him and/or permissions to
reproduce by others and don't mess with secondary markets with respect
to copies made and distributed by him and/or made with his permission
and owned by others.)
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:27:10 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> Tim Jackson wrote:
> [...]
> > But that still doesn't support your argument. I've had enough of
> > explaining why. Goodbye.
> A perfectly legitimate copy (as of time of reproduction) just can't
> somehow become infringing by subsequent act of distribution of THAT copy
> under terms and conditions that you don't like, silly. That's what
> "first sale" / exhaustion is about.
But even that **still** doesn't support your argument.
> (The idea is that copyright owner
> can "sell" copies (material objects) made by him and/or permissions to
> reproduce by others and don't mess with secondary markets with respect
> to copies made and distributed by him and/or made with his permission
> and owned by others.)
And this is just wrong. I've had enough of explaining why. Goodbye.
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
You've explained nothing, you've just asked a bunch of idiotic questions
such as:
: More accurately, when were those copies you've just made first placed
on : the European market with the consent of the copyright holder? They : haven't been, you've only just made them. Why then do you believe
that : they benefit from any exhaustion of the distribution right?
Unrestricted permission to reproduce (make copies) was "placed on the
European market with the consent of the copyright holder" which is the
same as if copyright holder would made and "placed on the European
market" all those copies himself with respect to first sale /
exhaustion.
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:50:12 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
> Unrestricted permission to reproduce (make copies) was "placed on the
> European market with the consent of the copyright holder" which is the
> same as if copyright holder would made and "placed on the European
> market" all those copies himself with respect to first sale /
> exhaustion.
Incorrect. Goodbye, Alexander.
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> But I've had enough of this. We've been over this many times. You're
> not listening. Goodbye.
...
> But that still doesn't support your argument. I've had enough of
> explaining why. Goodbye.
...
> And this is just wrong. I've had enough of explaining why. Goodbye.
...
> Incorrect. Goodbye, Alexander.
I find your goodbyes unconvincing.
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
>>>>> Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes:
>>>>> Tim Jackson wrote:
>> (Hint: Differences include the fact that one uses the term "lawfully
>> made" while the other doesn't. Similarities include the fact that
>> both relate only to the sale or transfer or other disposal of "that
>> copy". Not to the creation of new copies from it.)
[...]
> again: creation of new copies in the case of GCC is perfectly fine
> and unrestricted thanks to the GPL's reproduction permission.
It isn't. ... /Until/ (and /unless/) one /accepts/ GNU GPL
(with /all/ its permissions and restrictions) first.
Should a copy be made that doesn't comply with /all/ the GNU GPL
conditions (such as: a binary made from a modified source
without that source being made available) -- it's an infringing
copy, which one is /not/ allowed to distribute (AIUI) under
either doctrine.
Thus... Long live copyleft!
[...]
PS. And thanks Tim Jackson for the valuable comments on the subject.
>>>>> Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov wrote:
[...]
>> Should a copy be made that doesn't comply with /all/ the GNU GPL
>> conditions (such as: a binary made from a modified source without
>> that source being made available) -- it's an infringing copy,
> "Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted
> to the public?
> The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any
> part of it."
I see no contradition. GNU GPL imposes restrictions mainly on
distribution, and unless one distributes a GPL'ed work, GPL
imposes no further restrictions (over those already imposed by
the applicable laws.)
> The GPL purports to restrict the statutory right (17 USC 109)
It isn't quite the jurisdiction I'm currently under, BTW.
> "I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies,
> do I have to get the source and distribute that too?
> Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must
> distribute the complete corresponding source code too."
Indeed, it may be necessary to clarify this paragraph a bit.
AIUI, the intent of GNU GPL is that the source code has to be
available to the recipient of the binaries. If you're going to
provide the binary to your neighbor, you can give him or her the
URI to download the source. Or you may even withheld that,
should your neighbor be computer-savvy enough to obtain such an
URI via Web search.
... Or you can't do either, if your neighbor has no Internet
connectivity whatsoever, or if his or her bandwidth is too
limited to obtain the source in a reasonable amount of time.
