Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record - Linux ; Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp > > Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant. After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL. After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 230

Thread: Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

  1. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

    >
    >


    Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.

    After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL.

    After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't make GPL'd sources
    available.

    After the case ends: Defendant can now violate alleged plaintiffs'
    copyrights in Busybox with impunity due to dismissal WITH PREJUDICE
    against plaintiffs.

    What a great victory for the GPL and plaintiffs.

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    too, whereas GNU cannot.)

  2. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.


    Verizon is the visible face for FIOS, so the suit was
    launched against them. I assume that in the process of
    discovering where things came from, the plaintiffs
    decided that since Verizon is redistributing Actiontec's
    routers, it would be sufficient for them if Actiontec
    would provide the GPLed sources (which they were not
    doing for most of 2007) rather than Verizon.

    It's quite possible that because of they way Verizon
    distributes the routers and firmware that they are in
    fact not subject to the GPL, because they resell the
    routers and serve the firmware through an Actiontec
    gateway.

  3. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.


    Verizon is the visible face for FIOS, so the suit was
    launched against them. I assume that in the process of
    discovering where things came from, the plaintiffs
    decided that since Verizon is redistributing Actiontec's
    routers, it would be sufficient for them if Actiontec
    would provide the GPLed sources (which they were not
    doing for most of 2007) rather than Verizon.

    It's quite possible that because of they way Verizon
    distributes the routers and firmware that they are in
    fact not subject to the GPL, because they resell the
    routers and serve the firmware through an Actiontec
    gateway.

  4. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    [...]
    > It's quite possible that because of they way Verizon
    > distributes the routers and firmware that they are in
    > fact not subject to the GPL, because they resell the
    > routers and serve the firmware through an Actiontec
    > gateway.


    Care to elaborate on Verizon's gateway to Actiontec? How could one
    possibly make an online distribution server being responsible for files
    delivery (without browser redirection) fall outside the scope of
    exclusive rights under currently prevailing reading of 17 USC 109 saying
    that it doesn't cover teleportation*** (move-delete). I'm very
    interested, Hyman.

    ***) http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    too, whereas GNU cannot.)

  5. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    In article <488A0C76.B47FECB7@web.de>,
    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

    > >
    > >

    >
    > Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.
    >
    > After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL.
    >
    > After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't make GPL'd sources
    > available.


    The GPL requirement is:

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
    under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
    of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
    following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
    interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost
    of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    [Third option deleted as it is only relevant to noncommercial
    distribution]

    I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without
    actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is
    accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there
    is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it
    has to be from a verizon.com web site.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    In article ,
    thufir wrote:
    > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:16:24 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    > >> But, if you've just got a router sitting in your window which you
    > >> purchased on e-bay and are reselling, surely you, retailer, are not on
    > >> the hook? Just the manufacturer, I'd think.
    > >>
    > >>

    > > That's not my understanding. The GPL is reasonably clear on this, if
    > > you distribute the software in binary form, such as on flash in a
    > > router, then you must also make the source available to anyone who wants
    > > it.

    >
    >
    > Wouldn't this "first sale" provision take effect? I don't recall the
    > terminology, but it's been mentioned in this thread.


    Mark Kent makes use of an extensive kill file. There's a good chance he
    has all the people who actually are reasonably familiar with the First
    Sale doctrine (and its equivalent under European law) kill filed. Net
    result: Mark often enters threads late and clueless.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  7. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Tim Smith writes:

    >I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without
    >actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is
    >accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there
    >is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it
    >has to be from a verizon.com web site.


    Generally, a settlement reflects a compromise, not a complete defeat for
    some party.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting...or_mutual_gain
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

  8. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


    Tim Smith wrote:
    [...]
    > I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without
    > actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is
    > accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there
    > is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it
    > has to be from a verizon.com web site.


    I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from
    http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm
    that this transaction yielded no "written offer to provide the source"
    whatsoever. Go try it yourself.

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    too, whereas GNU cannot.)

  9. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Verily I say unto thee, that Hyman Rosen spake thusly:
    > Mark Kent wrote:


    >> That's not my understanding. The GPL is reasonably clear on this,
    >> if you distribute the software in binary form, such as on flash in
    >> a router, then you must also make the source available to anyone
    >> who wants it.

    >
    > You are forgetting that accepting the GPL is voluntary. If you choose
    > not to accept the GPL, then you are limited by what copyright law
    > normally permits. Copyright law in the U.S. permits you to resell
    > copies of legally acquired copyrighted works, without license or
    > permission required from the copyright holder.


    Rubbish.

    The GPL is a license, not a contract, therefore you are bound by that
    license irrespective of whether or not you agree to it, otherwise you
    are in violation of that license.

    9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

    You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a
    copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring
    solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a
    copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than
    this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered
    work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this
    License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you
    indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

    As for the requirement of US law that copyrights must be registered
    /first/ before one can enforce them, this "requirement" is in violation
    of international copyright treaties:

    [quote]
    The Berne Convention was developed at the instigation of Victor Hugo as
    the Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale. Thus it was
    influenced by the French "right of the author" (droit d'auteur), which
    contrasts with the Anglo-Saxon concept of "copyright" which only dealt
    with economic concerns. Under the Convention, copyrights for creative
    works are automatically in force upon their creation without being
    asserted or declared. An author need not "register" or "apply for" a
    copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is
    "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its
    author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to
    any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims
    them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors are given the same
    rights and privileges to copyrighted material as domestic authors in any
    country that signed the Convention.

    ....

    The United States initially refused to become party to the Convention
    since it would have required major changes in its copyright law,
    particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement
    for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory
    copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952
    to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989,
    the U.S. "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force
    and the United States became a party to the Berne Convention, making the
    Universal Copyright Convention obsolete.
    [quote]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_C...Artistic_Works

    And as for the First Sale doctrine, there is nothing in the GPL that
    attempts to prevent you from reselling the software, but equally there
    is nothing in the First Sale doctrine that contradicts the GPL's
    requirement that you also pass on the source code, since it is not about
    your rights as a seller, but about the "buyer's" rights as a new
    licensee to that software (access to the source). The software is Free
    (freedom), regardless of how often, or in what manner, it is sold.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
    | I know my rights.
    | I want my phone call.
    | DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
    | if you're unable to speak?
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    21:26:33 up 217 days, 18:02, 4 users, load average: 0.32, 0.44, 0.43

  10. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > How could one possibly make an online distribution server
    > being responsible for files delivery fall outside the scope
    > of exclusive rights


    Downloading from anywhere can cause pieces of a file to get
    copied from one computer to another before they reach you.
    Why doesn't that fall outside the scope of exclusive rights?

    I imagine it's just inherent in the properties of digital
    objects and network transmissions.

  11. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from
    > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm
    > that this transaction yielded no "written offer to provide the source"
    > whatsoever. Go try it yourself.


    Have you installed the firmware on your router?
    Perhaps in the unpacked file system that results,
    you can find the offer.

  12. Could someone *please* explain the law to Homer?

    In article , Homer
    wrote:
    > As for the requirement of US law that copyrights must be registered
    > /first/ before one can enforce them, this "requirement" is in violation
    > of international copyright treaties:


    Could someone who isn't in his killfile please explain to him that the
    requirement to register before suing does not apply to non-US origin
    Berne works, and hence is not in violation of the Berne Convention. It
    is OK under Berne to for a country to impose additional regulations on
    works whose origin is that country.

    Also, please explain to him that the requirement to register before you
    can collect statutory damages passes Berne muster, even though it DOES
    apply to non-US origin Berne works, because statutory damages go beyond
    the remedies required by Berne. A country is allowed to provide rights
    and remedies beyond Berne, if it wishes, and those can be subject to
    procedural requirements that are not allowed on the rights and remedies
    that Berne requires.

    This is at least the second time he's spread this particular copyright
    misinformation, and he's going to keep doing so if no one corrects him.

    Thanks.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  13. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from
    > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm
    > > that this transaction yielded no "written offer to provide the source"
    > > whatsoever. Go try it yourself.

    >
    > Have you installed the firmware on your router?
    > Perhaps in the unpacked file system that results,
    > you can find the offer.


    Have you? Did you find the offer?

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
    (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
    be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
    too, whereas GNU cannot.)

  14. Re: Could someone *please* explain the law to Homer?

    * Tim Smith temporarily uncloaked for Homer's edification/annoyance :

    > Could someone who isn't in his killfile please explain to him that the
    > requirement to register before suing does not apply to non-US origin
    > Berne works, and hence is not in violation of the Berne Convention. It
    > is OK under Berne to for a country to impose additional regulations on
    > works whose origin is that country.
    >
    > Also, please explain to him that the requirement to register before you
    > can collect statutory damages passes Berne muster, even though it DOES
    > apply to non-US origin Berne works, because statutory damages go beyond
    > the remedies required by Berne. A country is allowed to provide rights
    > and remedies beyond Berne, if it wishes, and those can be subject to
    > procedural requirements that are not allowed on the rights and remedies
    > that Berne requires.
    >
    > This is at least the second time he's spread this particular copyright
    > misinformation, and he's going to keep doing so if no one corrects him.


    Y'all kin thank me latuh!

    --
    If you waste your time cooking, you'll miss the next meal.

  15. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    In article ,
    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > How could one possibly make an online distribution server
    > > being responsible for files delivery fall outside the scope
    > > of exclusive rights

    >
    > Downloading from anywhere can cause pieces of a file to get
    > copied from one computer to another before they reach you.
    > Why doesn't that fall outside the scope of exclusive rights?
    >
    > I imagine it's just inherent in the properties of digital
    > objects and network transmissions.


    Hypothetical:

    Party X puts a file up on a publicly accessible server and makes its
    location known. (For example, X puts it on their HTTP server, with
    a link from the front page to the download).

    Party Y downloads the file. The result is a copy of the file on Y's
    hard disk.

    Question:

    Who made that copy and/or distributed that copy? X or Y?

    Either answer has some problematic implications.

    Suppose it is Y that counts as having made that copy. First of all,
    this is certainly going to annoy the big media companies. It would mean
    that people who happen to store their music and movie files on their
    server, where others happen to download them, are not making copies.

    While some might like this answer, just because it annoys the big media
    companies, it would have the same problem for GPL software. Someone
    could put a binary up on a server, and say that since they aren't the
    one copying and distributing it--that's the downloaders--they have no
    GPL obligation to provide source.

    So, saying Y is the one doing the copying and distributing is not going
    to make copyright holders happy, whether they are big media companies,
    or free software developers.

    How about the other possibility. X is the one making and distributing
    the copy.

    That works out better for the media companies. File sharers, at least,
    whose shared files are actually downloaded, will be liable.

    But it only partly resolves the problem for free software. If I take
    some GPL software that I do not own the copyright for, and put it on my
    server, then all is well. I'm the one copying and distributing when
    people grab it from my server, so I have to follow GPL. We are all
    happy now, right? Right...except notice that this is only where I am
    not the copyright holder.

    Suppose the copyright holder puts their own free software up on their
    server? In other words, X is the copyright holder. Y downloads it.
    Y has not made a copy. Y has not distributed the software. Y has not
    done *anything* that requires copyright permission. But many free
    software licenses (including GPL) are based upon the recipient needing
    copyright permission to obtain the copy.

    If the answer to my question is that X is doing the copying and
    distributing, that is not going to make free software makers happy.

    I think the answer we'd need to make everyone happy is for X to be doing
    the distributing and Y to be doing the copying. That would make big
    media happy, because then both the sharer and the downloader are
    infringing copyright. It would make free software software makers
    happy, because the downloaders will need copyright permission, and so
    have to accept the free software license.

    I haven't thought deeply about this, but my first impression is that
    this should be addressed legislatively. The copyright laws should be
    amended to say that:

    1. Making a file available on a download server (including P2P servers)
    counts as a distribution of the file to those who normally have access
    to the server for receiving files, and

    2. Downloading a file from a server counts as the downloader making a
    copy.

    Alternatively, perhaps the right to make a file available via download,
    and the right to download the file from a given server, should be new
    exclusive rights, in addition to the current copyright exclusive rights
    (copying, making derivative works, distribution, displaying, and
    performing).



    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Have you? Did you find the offer?


    I don't have FIOS - I live in an apartment building
    in NYC and Verizon isn't offering it to me yet. One
    day - I use Verizon for DSL.

  17. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Tim Smith wrote:
    > Who made that copy and/or distributed that copy? X or Y?


    This is at the heart of the "making available" suits. See
    .

    > Either answer has some problematic implications.


    That's what always happens when humans try to force their
    desires on a universe that doesn't care.

  18. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    In article ,
    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from
    > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm
    > > that this transaction yielded no "written offer to provide the source"
    > > whatsoever. Go try it yourself.

    >
    > Have you installed the firmware on your router?
    > Perhaps in the unpacked file system that results,
    > you can find the offer.


    At the risk of being overly picky, would that count? That requirement
    is that the written offer "accompany" the distribution. The file format
    does not appear to be any of the common archive formats, so there
    doesn't appear to be any reasonable way for most people to unpack it.

    Apparently, some Linksys routers also use .rmt files for firmware, and I
    did find one page where someone described a bit of the format, based on
    reverse engineering. Assuming that both routers are using the same .rmt
    format, it appears that there is a gzip'ed image of an ext2 filesystem
    inside.

    However, if I take Actiontec's .rmt file, and find every place inside it
    that has the right signature to be gzip'ed data, and start trying to
    gunzip from there, it fails. The data at all those locations reports
    various errors that indicate invalid gzip data.

    This, I would say that IF there is a written notice in there, it does
    not "accompany" the distribution of the GPL software--it is *part* of
    the distribution. To "accompany", I'd say it has to either be a
    separate file that comes with the GPL file(s), or it has to be bundle
    with the GPL file(s) in an archive format that is reasonably common
    (zip, tarball, etc).


    --
    --Tim Smith

  19. Re: Could someone *please* explain morality to Smith?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    > * Tim Smith temporarily uncloaked for Homer's edification/annoyance
    > :


    Bastard

    >> Could someone who isn't in his killfile


    They're called "Trolls", Smith ... like you, for example.

    >> please explain to him that the requirement to register before suing
    >> does not apply to non-US origin Berne works, and hence is not in
    >> violation of the Berne Convention.


    Irrelevant. I'm not talking about "non-US origin" works. As a signatory
    to the Berne Convention, the US is bound by its principles.

    But thanks anyway, for "explaining" something completely non-sequitur.

    >> It is OK under Berne to for a country to impose additional
    >> regulations on works whose origin is that country.


    It's "OK" for a signatory to the Berne Convention to violate one of it's
    most basic tenets? Yeah, that makes sense. So essentially you're saying
    that the US's adoption of the Berne Convention is a lie:

    (1) The three basic principles are the following:

    ....
    (b) Such protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any
    formality (principle of “automatic” protection)
    http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/b...ary_berne.html

    Note: "basic principles".

    However:

    Article 5
    Rights Guaranteed:

    ....

    (2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject
    to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent
    of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.
    Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent
    of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to
    protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the
    country where protection is claimed.
    http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/b...tml#P109_16834

    That looks like a loophole ripe for exploitation, and guess what - yes
    the "United States of Advertising: Land of the Fee" is just the very
    country to do that exploiting.

    So if the law in any given country (in the case the US) mandates
    formality (registration) as a condition of redress, then that completely
    negates one of the primary directives of the Berne Convention, and thus
    is a violation of it. The fact that the Berne Convention does not
    address this contradiction, does not mean it isn't a violation. It is
    the most glaring violation there is, essentially undermining the entire
    Berne Convention itself.

    One cannot possibly be said to be automatically "protected", if there is
    no mechanism to enforce that protection automatically (registration
    negates that automation). That's just common sense. The US has wilfully
    perverted the intent of this convention, completely reversing it, by
    utilising an oversight.

    >> Also, please explain to him that the requirement to register before
    >> you can collect statutory damages passes Berne muster


    You mean perverts the intent of the Berne Convention by utilising a
    loophole. That's not quite so innocuous as "passing muster".

    And thanks again for "explaining" how morally corrupt you are.

    >> even though it DOES apply to non-US origin Berne works


    Again, irrelevant.

    >> because statutory damages go beyond the remedies required by Berne.


    Well that is self-evident, and also obviously the problem ... at least
    in the US.

    >> A country is allowed to provide rights and remedies beyond Berne


    Again you present this as though it's acceptable to utilise an oversight
    in order to pervert the actual intent of this convention. There's a huge
    difference between presenting this condition as being "allowed", and the
    /truth/ that it is actually a violation of the convention's most basic
    tenet.

    >> if it wishes, and those can be subject to procedural requirements
    >> that are not allowed on the rights and remedies that Berne
    >> requires.


    The fact remains that the specific "procedural requirements" in the US
    are a violation of the Berne Convention's most fundamental principle.

    >> This is at least the second time he's spread this particular
    >> copyright misinformation, and he's going to keep doing so if no one
    >> corrects him.


    And this is the hundredth time I've had to explain to you the difference
    between morality and the law.

    This no more "misinformation" than claiming that Tivoisation perverts
    the intent of the GPL, and is as such a violation of its principles, in
    intent if not actually in law. The fact that the necessary provisions to
    guard against such exploitations may not be in place, does not mean that
    the principles of such protections have not been violated.

    Your (usual) obtuseness and pedantry doesn't change that.

    > Y'all kin thank me latuh!


    Yeah, thanks, but I'd rather not see Smith's inane drivel.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
    | I know my rights.
    | I want my phone call.
    | DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
    | if you're unable to speak?
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    01:37:03 up 217 days, 22:12, 3 users, load average: 0.25, 0.38, 0.39

  20. Could someone please also explain to Homer it is not immoral to know the law?

    In article <278ql5-38a.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer
    wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    > > * Tim Smith temporarily uncloaked for Homer's edification/annoyance
    > > :

    >
    > Bastard


    May I impose on you once more, Linonut? Homer is being denser than
    usual.

    ....
    > >> please explain to him that the requirement to register before suing
    > >> does not apply to non-US origin Berne works, and hence is not in
    > >> violation of the Berne Convention.

    >
    > Irrelevant. I'm not talking about "non-US origin" works. As a signatory
    > to the Berne Convention, the US is bound by its principles.
    >
    > But thanks anyway, for "explaining" something completely non-sequitur.
    >
    > >> It is OK under Berne to for a country to impose additional
    > >> regulations on works whose origin is that country.

    >
    > It's "OK" for a signatory to the Berne Convention to violate one of it's
    > most basic tenets? Yeah, that makes sense. So essentially you're saying
    > that the US's adoption of the Berne Convention is a lie:
    >
    >
    > (1) The three basic principles are the following:
    >
    > ...
    > (b) Such protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any
    > formality (principle of “automatic” protection)
    >
    >
    > http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/b...ary_berne.html


    You left out (1)(a):

    Works originating in one of the contracting States (that is, works
    the author of which is a national of such a State or works which
    were first published in such a State) must be given the same
    protection in each of the other contracting States as the latter
    grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of “national
    treatment”)

    Read that carefully. Works originating in, say, England, must be given
    the same protection in, say, the US, as the US grants to works of US
    nationals. (1)(b) says that protection must not require formalities.

    And that is the case in the US. If you wish to sue someone in the US
    over copyright protection, you may do so. You do not have to register
    your copyright.

    Berne is concerned with what countries have to do in regard to the works
    of people from OTHER countries. They are free under Berne to have more
    stringent requirements on their own people.

    If you don't like that, fine. If you think it is immoral that Berne
    works that way, fine. But that *IS* how it works. Go ahead, check with
    pretty much every authority in every country that is part of Berne, and
    they'll agree.

    >
    > Article 5
    > Rights Guaranteed:
    >
    > ...
    >
    > (2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject
    > to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent
    > of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.
    > Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent
    > of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to
    > protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the
    > country where protection is claimed.
    >
    >
    > http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/b...tml#P109_16834


    That, and (1), are describing protection OUTSIDE the country of
    original. See (3) for protection inside the country of origin:

    (3) Protection in the country of origin is governed by domestic law.
    However, when the author is not a national of the country of origin
    of the work for which he is protected under this Convention, he
    shall enjoy in that country the same rights as national authors.

    > That looks like a loophole ripe for exploitation, and guess what - yes
    > the "United States of Advertising: Land of the Fee" is just the very
    > country to do that exploiting.
    >
    > So if the law in any given country (in the case the US) mandates
    > formality (registration) as a condition of redress, then that completely
    > negates one of the primary directives of the Berne Convention, and thus
    > is a violation of it. The fact that the Berne Convention does not
    > address this contradiction, does not mean it isn't a violation. It is
    > the most glaring violation there is, essentially undermining the entire
    > Berne Convention itself.
    >
    > One cannot possibly be said to be automatically "protected", if there is
    > no mechanism to enforce that protection automatically (registration
    > negates that automation). That's just common sense. The US has wilfully
    > perverted the intent of this convention, completely reversing it, by
    > utilising an oversight.


    See above example. Works from Berne countries other than the US are
    automatically protected, with *NO* *REGISTRATION* *REQUIREMENT*, just as
    Berne requires.

    What you appear to have failed to realize is that there are two kinds of
    treaties. One kind regulates the behavior of a government toward its
    own citizens. A good example would be the UN Convention on the Rights
    of the Child. When a country agrees to it, they have to provide its
    protections for its own children citizens (as well as children
    non-citizens under its jurisdiction).

    The other kind is a treaty that regulates how the government deals with
    foreigners. Berne is an example of this second kind of treaty.


    > >> Also, please explain to him that the requirement to register before
    > >> you can collect statutory damages passes Berne muster

    >
    > You mean perverts the intent of the Berne Convention by utilising a
    > loophole. That's not quite so innocuous as "passing muster".


    It's not a loophole. See above for the source of your confusion (you
    think Berne is the first type of treaty, when it is actually the second).

    > And thanks again for "explaining" how morally corrupt you are.


    I see. Accurately telling you what the law *is* (as opposed to what you
    wish it was) is a sign of moral corruption?

    ....
    > >> A country is allowed to provide rights and remedies beyond Berne

    >
    > Again you present this as though it's acceptable to utilise an oversight
    > in order to pervert the actual intent of this convention. There's a huge
    > difference between presenting this condition as being "allowed", and the
    > /truth/ that it is actually a violation of the convention's most basic
    > tenet.


    No, I present it as a fact, because that is the way Berne works. That
    is the way Berne was designed to work. It is a treaty of the second
    type, not the first type.

    ....
    > >> This is at least the second time he's spread this particular
    > >> copyright misinformation, and he's going to keep doing so if no one
    > >> corrects him.

    >
    > And this is the hundredth time I've had to explain to you the difference
    > between morality and the law.


    You made a statement of law: that US law's requirement that you must
    register in order to sue over a US origin work violates Berne. As a
    matter of objective fact, you are wrong. There was no question of
    morality involved.

    --
    --Tim Smith

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast