In article <m2lndscgxi....@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>If you buy a pirated book, you have acquired the right to burn the >book in your chimney, or to wipe your behind with pages from it, or to >roll cigarettes with its pages and smoke them. You have not acquired >the right to read it.
The copyright owner owns the right to COPY the material. He does not own the right to control who can READ the material, once it is published.
The GPL explicitly states that deficiencies by a distributor do not inhibit the recipient in any way. There is no requirement that you agree to the GPL in order to RECEIVE a copy of it, and it is pretty clear that is the intent of the GPL. Adding in extra conditions such as "you must agree to the conditions of the GPL in order to read, compile or modify the program, and you must not give a copy of the program to anyone who doesn't agree to these conditions" would be totally at odds with the intent of the GPL.
In article <7zf73.460$KM3.139232@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>I was referring to the spirit of the law. Does it make sense for a law to >prohibit someone from shipping A+B when it allows shipping A along with >instructions saying "to make this work, you have to add B to it"?
Of COURSE it makes sense. If I write a book about how to use Windows 1901, it is clearly not very useful unless you actually have a copy of that program.
There is a HUGE difference between my selling my book, and my selling the book along with a copy of Windows 1901 (other than the fact that I couldn't sell my book for 3 more years). Do you actually believe that copyright law says I have to have permission from Microsoft in order to even write my book, much less distribute it?
Selling a program (or even giving away a program) that runs on a Microsoft OS is not the equivalent of selling the program along with a copy of the OS. I'm not "working around" that I can't distribute them together by having the user do the installation. Now, if Microsoft had something in the license agreement saying "users may not install programs on this operating system, unless they are officially approved by Microsoft", AND such a license was held to be valid, then possibly selling such a program could be held to be an infringement, since it would be encouraging the user to violate the license agreement.
However, the GPL explicitly, and by intent, does NOT restrict the user from doing anything besides distributing copies.
Ken Arromdee <karro...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote: >owine...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger) wrote: >> This is probably not the case - for example, if I was a company >>making Bargain PC's and distributing copies of Windows98 that I had >>obtained from a second source, I'd guess the courts would take a dim >>view of that. But that's not the same as the end user not owning the copy.
>So if a company distributes illegal copies of Windows 98, the end user of >a Windows copies still owns it?
That I don't know - what I said was that no one has shown here that the end user does _not_ own the copy, or that (in the case you suggest) that MS owns the copy. Clearly MS controls the copyright, but that is not the same as the copy, or even the expression itself - it merely means it has the exclusive right to make copies (and a few other things, like publicly perform) of the work. Nothing more. Of course, that copy may be confiscated and destroyed by court order resulting from a lawsuit - that still would not mean MS owned the copy, or that the end user did not. Like I said, a lawyer experienced in these issues could probably address this issue with no trouble. I would still like to see some evidence (case or statute citations) that it is illegal to make use of an infringing copy, especially when the original work is published (unpublished works usually get more protection against fair use arguments). That's a very strong claim.
Steve Peltz <pe...@medusa.nn.com> wrote: >In article <7zf73.460$KM3.139232@burlma1-snr2>, >Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> wrote: >>I was referring to the spirit of the law. Does it make sense for a law to >>prohibit someone from shipping A+B when it allows shipping A along with >>instructions saying "to make this work, you have to add B to it"?
>Of COURSE it makes sense. If I write a book about how to use Windows >1901, it is clearly not very useful unless you actually have a copy of >that program.
Sure it is. I don't use Windows, but I bought an MCSE (or maybe it was MCNE) book because I often have to provide technical support to customers who do. While instructional books like this have additional utility when used in conjunction with what they're describing, they can also stand alone for intellectual purposes.
On the other hand, a program in binary form serves no practical purpose unless it can be run. If it has to be linked with a particular library, it's just a waste of disk space if the library isn't there.
>Selling a program (or even giving away a program) that runs on a Microsoft >OS is not the equivalent of selling the program along with a copy of >the OS. I'm not "working around" that I can't distribute them together >by having the user do the installation. Now, if Microsoft had something >in the license agreement saying "users may not install programs on this >operating system, unless they are officially approved by Microsoft", >AND such a license was held to be valid, then possibly selling such a >program could be held to be an infringement, since it would be encouraging >the user to violate the license agreement.
>However, the GPL explicitly, and by intent, does NOT restrict the user >from doing anything besides distributing copies.
I think there are some practical, common sense issues involved here. Microsoft ships an OS with the express purpose of allowing customers to load applications onto it. These applications are not considered derivative works of the OS. They're separate pieces of software, and application developers can safely assume that the OS will be preexisting on the system that the application is loaded onto.
Readline is different. Except perhaps for some Linux releases, readline cannot be assumed to exist already. For the application to be complete, the vendor should include it. If he doesn't do so, but instead says "Customer must finish putting this program together by downloading readline and linking them together", something seems wrong. If this is allowed, what's the point of preventing the vendor from doing the link himself? All it does is make things harder for the end user, which is the group that GPL is intended to benefit. And what's the point of distinguishing the GPL from the LGPL? It seems like the use of shared libraries can effectively turn any GPL'ed library into an LGPL'ed library.
-- Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
karro...@nyx.nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) writes: >owine...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger) wrote: >>>In order to use the software, you have to get it. Getting it, which involves >>>making a copy, _is_ protected by copyright. If a friend made you a copy of >>>Microsoft Windows, you would not have any right to use that copy at all. >>>Thus, a modified GPL which let you use the copy under certain conditions would >>>be adding rights to the default of no rights at all. >> Owning the copy would give me rights to it. While the distributor >>might well be liable for not following the terms of the GPL in making a >>copy, once I own the copy, it's my property.
>You seem to be saying that if the distributor makes you a copy illegally, the >distributor can be sued, but you own the copy.
Yes. A court can order that the illegal copies be confiscated, but until and unless such a court order is made, you own the copy.
I'm not a lawyer, but I know how to search for legislation on the Internet. Here's a quote from the Australian copyright act.
| COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 116 | | Rights of owner of copyright in respect of infringing copies | | SECT. (1) The owner of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter | may bring an action for conversion or detention in relation to: | | (a) an infringing copy ... | (1A) In an action for conversion or detention, a court may grant to the | owner of the copyright all or any of the remedies that are available in | such an action as if: | | (a) the owner of the copyright had been the owner of the infringing | copy since the time the copy was made
Note that the legislation says that a court may make an order AS IF the copyright owner had been the owner of the infringing copy. It seems to me that this implies that if an infringing copy is sold to some purchaser, then up until such an order is made, the copyright owner is NOT the owner of the infrinding copy -- the purchaser rather than the copyright owner is the owner of the infringing copy.
>This isn't true. Again, consider what happens if it is Windows 95 instead of >GPL software. Would you claim that the distributor can be sued by Microsoft, >but you can use the copy of Windows as you see fit?
>Of course not. If the copy is illegal, the person receiving the copy doesn't >end up owning it. They only own the copy if it was legally made.
I don't find your assertions convincing here. What are they based on?
I think it might well be the case that you can use the copy of Windows as you see fit, since copyright law only governs copying (and creation of derivative works, public performance, etc.), not use. The copyright owner can "bring an action for conversion or detention", but unless and until such a court order is made, I think you can indeed use the copy as you see fit.
I agree with Lynn Winebarger, a lawyer's opinion would be helpful here.
-- Fergus Henderson <f...@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger f...@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:34:02 GMT, Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> wrote: >Readline is different. Except perhaps for some Linux releases, readline >cannot be assumed to exist already. For the application to be complete, >the vendor should include it. If he doesn't do so, but instead says >"Customer must finish putting this program together by downloading readline >and linking them together", something seems wrong. If this is allowed,
This anomaly only exists because readline is already distributed in every nook and cranny of the net with a license that says to users that they can link it with anything they chose. No one needs to distribute readline at all. Further what about programs specifically targetted for Linux? Your argument allows the possibility that such programs could be linked against readline, since we know that readline is already present on those systems (AFAIK all and not just some).
>what's the point of preventing the vendor from doing the link himself? All >it does is make things harder for the end user, which is the group that GPL >is intended to benefit. And what's the point of distinguishing the GPL >from the LGPL? It seems like the use of shared libraries can effectively >turn any GPL'ed library into an LGPL'ed library.
This argument basically says, that you find the conclusion unacceptable, and thus the premise must be wrong. This is essentially the FSF's argument as well. I find such arguments unpersuasive. Since the anomaly results strictly from the licensing in the GPL, you have to consider the possibility that the GPL is flawed.
In article <m2lndscgxi....@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>If you buy a pirated book, you have acquired the right to burn the >book in your chimney, or to wipe your behind with pages from it, or to >roll cigarettes with its pages and smoke them. You have not acquired >the right to read it.
When did copyright laws start attempting to control how you could use something beyond duplicating it? And in this scenario, what would you expect from someone who read the contents before learning that the copy was not published legally? Does he have to forget that he read it?
>This argument basically says, that you find the conclusion unacceptable, >and thus the premise must be wrong. This is essentially the FSF's >argument as well. I find such arguments unpersuasive. Since the >anomaly results strictly from the licensing in the GPL, you have to >consider the possibility that the GPL is flawed.
Or that the copyright laws do not give the FSF the power to enforce their wishes.
>> In article <929032389.926...@iris.nyx.net>, >> Ken Arromdee <karro...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote: >> >owine...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger) wrote: >> >> This is probably not the case - for example, if I was a company >> >>making Bargain PC's and distributing copies of Windows98 that I had >> >>obtained from a second source, I'd guess the courts would take a dim >> >>view of that. But that's not the same as the end user not owning the copy.
>> >So if a company distributes illegal copies of Windows 98, the end user of >> >a Windows copies still owns it?
>> That I don't know - what I said was that no one has shown here that >> the end user does _not_ own the copy, or that (in the case you suggest) >> that MS owns the copy.
>There are two considerations involved here: the end user owns the >physical material of the copy, but Microsoft owns the intellectual >property on it. Microsoft has the right to demand that you hand over
Here's where your wrong, at least in the US. You don't own intellectual "property", you have monopoly rights on certain aspects of its use - copying, public performance, etc. You do not own the information or ideas expressed.
>It is a very bland and ordinary claim. Otherwise, pirated copies of >books might be sold far and wide quite legally, and only the immediate >producer of the copy might fear any problems, where as all bookstores >and intermediaries would claim that they have all the right to make >use of this infringing copy by selling it for a profit.
Any claim about not being able to read something that is widely published is a strong claim. As for the bookstores, they are different from the end users - reselling pirated copies (particularly on a wide basis) is different from reading those copies as an end user.
David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes: >f...@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson) writes:
>[pirated copy as example]
>> I think it might well be the case that you can use the copy of >> Windows as you see fit, since copyright law only governs copying >> (and creation of derivative works, public performance, etc.), not >> use.
>Nope, I can't, because I have never indulged in any act to make the >intellectual property accessible to me legally.
Which law school did you say you went to? Which legislation or case law is your argument based on? Or did you just make it up, based on your own "common sense" understanding of what you *think* the law is or should be?
Last time I looked, the Australian copyright act never used the words "intellectual property", but instead talked about "copyright", and never prohibited reading books, but instead only prohibited copying them (and certain related acts such as creating derived works, making public performances, etc.).
If you can cite some legislation, case law, legal authority, or precedent to back up your case, I might believe you. But if your argument is based only on your analogy between physical property and intellectual property, then I find it unconvincing.
-- Fergus Henderson <f...@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger f...@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
>But the material in the pirated book is not "published" by him. His >copyright ensures that his material may be used according to fair use >only when some consideration has passed to the author. In the case of >a pirated book, this has not happened. You cannot acquire the right >to read the stuff in a pirated book, in the same way as you cannot >acquire the right to use or own something more material you buy from >someone who has stolen it.
You overstate the rights that copyright law gives to the copyright holder (at least in the US). Copyright law allows the copyright holder the right to control copying, public performance, creating derived works, distribution and other specifically enumerated things. The right to restrict reading a book, or to letting a friend read the book at your house are not amoung such rights, unless a transfer or distribution is concerned.
People go into bookstores and read entire books without buying them all the time. Some bookstores encourage this. The author gets nothing from such readers. No consideration passed, period.
For the US, the place to read about copyright is Title 17 of the US Code. Section 106 lists the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. It's online, check it out.
> >> I think it might well be the case that you can use the copy of > >> Windows as you see fit, since copyright law only governs copying > >> (and creation of derivative works, public performance, etc.), not > >> use.
> >Nope, I can't, because I have never indulged in any act to make the > >intellectual property accessible to me legally. ... > Last time I looked, the Australian copyright act never used the words > "intellectual property", but instead talked about "copyright", > and never prohibited reading books, but instead only prohibited > copying them (and certain related acts such as creating derived > works, making public performances, etc.).
> If you can cite some legislation, case law, legal authority, or precedent > to back up your case, I might believe you. But if your argument is > based only on your analogy between physical property and intellectual > property, then I find it unconvincing.
Most non-free computer software, including Windows, is licensed, not sold. So you don't buy a copy of Windows, what you buy is something like a lease on the copy. Usually the license says something like "you own the physical media that the software is recorded on, but we own the software and permit you to use it on these conditions".
I'm not completely convinced that this in enforceable. Certainly, ads that say things like "we sell Office 2000 for $2000" are quite likely to be misleading advertising.
This is one of the nice things about the GPL; you own any copies of GPLed software that you make.
>-> Would any really feeble readline function work? This seems to be >-> compatible at the API level. >-> >-> char *readline(char *prompt) >-> { >-> puts(prompt); >-> fflush(stdout); >-> return gets(malloc(1000)); >-> }
>The readline function is a lot more than just this above. >readline works together with the history.h lib.
OK, adding
void add_history(char* line) {}
makes this simple (but useful) skeleton application work:
main() { char *line; while ((line = readline("hello: ")) != NULL) { if (*line) add_history(line); puts(line); free(line); } }
So, suppose I put my crummy readline() and add_history() in a shared library and distribute that shared library with my non-GPL program, and that the end user chooses to replace my shared library with readline.so.
My source code is non-GPL, since I didn't incorporate any other GPL code, right? So has this tiny bit of code circumvented the readline GPL?
-- Mark Harrison "Open the floppy disk door, Hal." AsiaInfo Computer Networks http://usai.asiainfo.com:8080/ Beijing, China / Santa Clara, CA ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
Geoffrey KEATING <geo...@discus.anu.edu.au> writes: > Most non-free computer software, including Windows, is licensed, not > sold. So you don't buy a copy of Windows, what you buy is something > like a lease on the copy. Usually the license says something like > "you own the physical media that the software is recorded on, but we > own the software and permit you to use it on these conditions".
> I'm not completely convinced that this in enforceable. Certainly, ads > that say things like "we sell Office 2000 for $2000" are quite likely > to be misleading advertising.
> This is one of the nice things about the GPL; you own any copies > of GPLed software that you make.
No way: it's still just licenced to you. If you actually owned it, you'd be able to re-release it under a different licencing scheme. -- Ottavio Rizzo IRMAR, Campus de Beaulieu ri...@maths.univ-rennes1.fr Université de Rennes 1 Tél +33 (0)2 99 28 67 92 35042 RENNES cedex Fax +33 (0)2 99 28 67 90 FRANCE
> > Most non-free computer software, including Windows, is licensed, not > > sold. So you don't buy a copy of Windows, what you buy is something > > like a lease on the copy. Usually the license says something like > > "you own the physical media that the software is recorded on, but we > > own the software and permit you to use it on these conditions".
> > I'm not completely convinced that this in enforceable. Certainly, ads > > that say things like "we sell Office 2000 for $2000" are quite likely > > to be misleading advertising.
> > This is one of the nice things about the GPL; you own any copies > > of GPLed software that you make.
> No way: it's still just licenced to you. If you actually owned it, > you'd be able to re-release it under a different licencing scheme.
You own the copy and might do all with it copyright law permits. If you accept the license, you can do more.
In contrast, standard licenses prohibit you to do a lot of things copyright law permits. For that reason they usually include some phrase "if you don't relish that indeed we want you to relinquish all sorts of rights you might have been led into believing you have acquired, give the stuff back for a refund".
-- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
>> This is one of the nice things about the GPL; you own any copies >> of GPLed software that you make.
>No way: it's still just licenced to you. If you actually owned it, >you'd be able to re-release it under a different licencing scheme.
No, you're confusing owning the copies with owning the copyright.
-- Fergus Henderson <f...@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger f...@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
ircl...@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) writes: > On 11 Jun 1999 12:14:49 +0200, David Kastrup > <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> >But the material in the pirated book is not "published" by him. His > >copyright ensures that his material may be used according to fair use > >only when some consideration has passed to the author. In the case of > >a pirated book, this has not happened. You cannot acquire the right > >to read the stuff in a pirated book, in the same way as you cannot > >acquire the right to use or own something more material you buy from > >someone who has stolen it.
> You overstate the rights that copyright law gives to the copyright > holder (at least in the US). Copyright law allows the copyright > holder the right to control copying, public performance, creating > derived works, distribution and other specifically enumerated > things.
Correct. So it is the copyright holder who is in control of who has a legal copy.
> The right to restrict reading a book, or to letting a friend read the > book at your house are not amoung such rights, unless a transfer > or distribution is concerned.
The right to have this book in the first place is. There is no inherent right of a person buying a pirated copy of the book to be allowed to make use of the pirated content.
> People go into bookstores and read entire books without buying them > all the time. Some bookstores encourage this. The author gets > nothing from such readers. No consideration passed, period.
But those people do not have the *right* to read it. You cannot go into a bookstore and demand that you may read through entire books.
-- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
In article <t8vhcmgo2d....@discus.anu.edu.au>, Geoffrey KEATING <geo...@discus.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Most non-free computer software, including Windows, is licensed, not >sold. So you don't buy a copy of Windows, what you buy is something >like a lease on the copy. Usually the license says something like >"you own the physical media that the software is recorded on, but we >own the software and permit you to use it on these conditions".
Most software is _represented_ as being licensed, which is not the same as actually being licensed. To determine whether your software is _really_ licensed or just sold, break one of the terms of the "EULA", inform the company, and be ready to go to court.
>I'm not completely convinced that this in enforceable. Certainly, ads >that say things like "we sell Office 2000 for $2000" are quite likely >to be misleading advertising.
Or, perhaps "EULA"'s are <almost fraudulent> claims.
> >> I think it might well be the case that you can use the copy of > >> Windows as you see fit, since copyright law only governs copying > >> (and creation of derivative works, public performance, etc.), not > >> use.
> >Nope, I can't, because I have never indulged in any act to make the > >intellectual property accessible to me legally.
> Which law school did you say you went to?
Even if I did, it would have been a German one.
> Last time I looked, the Australian copyright act never used the words > "intellectual property", but instead talked about "copyright", > and never prohibited reading books, but instead only prohibited > copying them (and certain related acts such as creating derived > works, making public performances, etc.).
Right. Acquiring a legal copy makes it possible for you to read the stuff. Acquiring an illegal copy gives you no right to read the stuff. You might as well have broken into the author's home and copied his manuscripts. That would give you the same rights than acquiring an illegal copy does.
Copyright law governs what constitutes a legally usable copy. You might as well claim that it is perfectly legal to watch TV on a stolen TV set, since property laws do not pose restrictions on watching TV.
-- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
<d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote: >ircl...@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) writes: >> People go into bookstores and read entire books without buying them >> all the time. Some bookstores encourage this. The author gets >> nothing from such readers. No consideration passed, period.
>But those people do not have the *right* to read it. You cannot go >into a bookstore and demand that you may read through entire books.
Okay, but the point is not that they have the right, but whether the copyright holder rather than the bookstore owner is the entity that has the right to stop them.
The copyright holder cannot stop me from wallpapering my house with pages from his/her book and then allowing everbody who visits my house to read the book. The copyright holder can keep me from making copies of the book, but not from using the original pages.
>Right. Acquiring a legal copy makes it possible for you to read the >stuff. Acquiring an illegal copy gives you no right to read the >stuff. You might as well have broken into the author's home and >copied his manuscripts. That would give you the same rights than >acquiring an illegal copy does.
A person who steals a book and reads it is a thief and not a copyright violator. I don't see any protected right to restrict reading (so long as a copy is not made) in US copyright law. The right to perform, copy, or create derivative works is reserved to the copyright holder, but reading is not. Could you cite a provision of German or US law that would demonstrate your point?
For software the situation is different because usage implies making a copy in memory. You cannot use software without either violating copyright or invoking fair use, so your argument would be true for software, but not for books.
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 06:24:46 GMT, ma...@usai.asiainfo.com
<ma...@usai.asiainfo.com> wrote: >So, suppose I put my crummy readline() and add_history() in a shared >library and distribute that shared library with my non-GPL program, >and that the end user chooses to replace my shared library with >readline.so.
Assuming that readline is being used in an application simply to parse user input, I don't see how your stuff wouldn't satisfy the requirement that an alternate library with the same API be available.
In fact the exercise is so trivial in the case of readline, that it seems silly to even require someone to do it. Of course, the licence on readline has in at least one instance encouraged someone to GPL their code. Perhaps this is reason enough for the FSF to stick to their position.
>My source code is non-GPL, since I didn't incorporate any >other GPL code, right? So has this tiny bit of code >circumvented the readline GPL?
Yes. The FSF would have to assert an interface copyright to stop you, and they are loathe to do that. But we know that the copyright holder doesn't want readline used this way, so we shouldn't deliberately do this. Legal or not, it's still wrong.
ircl...@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) writes: > On 18 Jun 1999 11:00:31 +0200, David Kastrup > <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote: > >ircl...@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) writes: > >> People go into bookstores and read entire books without buying them > >> all the time. Some bookstores encourage this. The author gets > >> nothing from such readers. No consideration passed, period.
> >But those people do not have the *right* to read it. You cannot go > >into a bookstore and demand that you may read through entire books.
> Okay, but the point is not that they have the right, but whether the > copyright holder rather than the bookstore owner is the entity that > has the right to stop them.
Yes. If a bookstore advertises that it has reading rooms where you can read through entire books in perfect leisure, then several publishers would make trouble. A bookstore has not the permission to turn itself into a library or a reading room without negotiating with the copyright defenders.
> The copyright holder cannot stop me from wallpapering my house > with pages from his/her book and then allowing everbody who visits > my house to read the book.
I am not so sure. I quote from a book:
Except in the Unites States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
Of course, this might not be legally binding.
-- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
ircl...@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) writes: > On 18 Jun 1999 15:12:27 +0200, David Kastrup > <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> >Right. Acquiring a legal copy makes it possible for you to read the > >stuff. Acquiring an illegal copy gives you no right to read the > >stuff. You might as well have broken into the author's home and > >copied his manuscripts. That would give you the same rights than > >acquiring an illegal copy does.
> A person who steals a book and reads it is a thief and not a > copyright violator.
You fail to understand my argument. Read it again. I was not talking about stealing a book.
> The right to perform, copy, or create derivative works is reserved > to the copyright holder, but reading is not.
You cannot read a book if you don't have a copy.
-- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
>Yes. If a bookstore advertises that it has reading rooms where you >can read through entire books in perfect leisure, then several >publishers would make trouble. A bookstore has not the permission to >turn itself into a library or a reading room without negotiating with >the copyright defenders.
The local Barnes and Nobles does exactly this. I am not aware of any such challenges by publishers, but perhaps they've gotten permission from every publisher : ). The place is an extremely comfortable place to sit and browse/read. It's always full of people doing just that when I go in. There's even a coffee shop inside. No reading rooms I guess. Just comfortable chairs and tables.
>> The copyright holder cannot stop me from wallpapering my house >> with pages from his/her book and then allowing everbody who visits >> my house to read the book.
>I am not so sure. I quote from a book:
> Except in the Unites States of America, this book is sold subject > to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, > be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the > publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other > than that in which it is published and without a similar condition > including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
>Of course, this might not be legally binding.
Perhaps it is binding somewhere. I notice it excludes the US where copyright law expressly allows resale without the copyright holders permission. Perhaps elsewhere such resale is subject to publishers consent.
I don't think pasting pages on a wall in my house constitutes resale, lending, hiring, trade, or circulating though. So even where the provision is binding it's not clear that wall papering can be prohibited.
