Subject: Re: what was the point?
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:52:31 -0700
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:52:31 -0700
on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:06:47AM -0700, email@greglondon.com (email@greglondon.com)
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 October 2001, "Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> > email@greglondon.com (email@greglondon.com) wrote:
> 
> > > but copyright law reserves no rights to the author regarding "use".
> > 
> > No longer strictly true, see 17 USC 1201 ff., recently discussed by
> > myself, Larry Rosen, and Wendy Selzer on this list.
> 
> do you know the subject title of the discussion thread?

Try Google or list archives at crynwr.com

> > > so, here's a hypothetical situation:
> > > 
> > > Bob's Music Conglomeration starts releasing music as an object file.

<...>

> > Not as I read it.
> > 
> > You haven't stated who owns the music,
> 
> ah, I was imlying that Bob owned the music as well.  The music needed
> to be linked to be played, and the license for the music says it can
> only be linked with Bob's Music Jukebox.  The license restriction is
> on the Music, not the player.  somethign like:
> 
> "you can copy/distribute this music freely, but derived works (and
> linking) can only be done with software licensed by Bob"

This is licensed use, not copyright.  Contract law, not copyright
governs, if the contract applies to the music.  Legality of such
contracts is questionable under current US law.

> If true, then Bob can effectively control all *use* of his music
> files. And this doesn't seem to me to be the intent of Copyright Law.

I'd appreciate if you'd read both posts and law with comprehension.
Outside a very narrow scope, defined by 1201ff, US copyright law does
not govern use.  Attempts to use it in this regard have been rejected by
courts repeatedly.  I stated this previously.  Your re-posing the
question doesn't change the answer.

> > The 11th Circuit's Wind Done Gone ruling also has some
> > interesting comments concerning ownership in copyright and ownership in
> > works.
> 
> Any URL's that summarize?

Not that I'm aware, the full ruling is fairly brief.  Read it.

This discussion is rather wide of the mark for license discuss.  If
you've got specific questions regarding free software licensing and
approval by the Open Source Initiative, post them here.  If you're
wish to continue a rather uninformed discussion of general legal issues,
there are more appropriate forums.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>       http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                   Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                     http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]