3 ms·
Really. Copyright is just that, copyright. It's not readright, useright, flyright or workforright. The license for foo can say "by copying foo, you affirm you
by Arnt 8y ago
Really.
Copyright is just that, copyright. It's not readright, useright, flyright or workforright.
The license for foo can say "by copying foo, you affirm your acceptance of the following conditions: …" and if you do copy foo and nothing else gives you the right to copy it, then those conditions are what you must've accepted, right? Of course you may argue the point, but that's the theory.
However, if what you do is use foo or fly with KLM, not copy foo, and don't affirm your acceptance by other means (such as signing a document), then copyright doesn't apply.
EDIT: And even if it does apply, it's not clear to me that what it applies to is the non-copying bit. If copying and flying with KLM are incompatible, then it's not clear to me that copyright can ban the latter.
- snaky 8y agoThat's not about copyright actually. The license is a contract, and you decide to sign it or not - by deciding to use the software or not. The contract in theory may include any restrictions you can imagine. There are in practice some restrictions on that restrictions by some laws in some countries in some aspects, but rarely about KLM.
- fulafel 8y agoCopyright license and contract are not (necessary) the same thing. An important related fact is that contract breach is generally less penalised than copyright infringement. See eg https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-court-case/ https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-con... & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i9sngsv8G0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i9sngsv8G0 (And keep in mind that per-license US case law doesn't have standing globally)
- antt 8y agoIf you are using IP without a contract you are engaging in copyright infringement. People we've been through this. This fud was deal with when the GPL was ruled valid a decade ago.
- zozbot123 8y agoNope, copyright also covers public performance of the copyrighted work. And that's exactly the part of IaaS or SaaS services that's so controversial lately.
- hlandau 8y agoI'm unaware of any case law establishing that using software to provide a service constitutes "public performance" as defined in copyright law. Got a citation?
- zozbot123 8y ago> using software to provide a service This is not what I said, so could you please not put words in my mouth? It's about statutory provision, not just case law. And it's not about "using" a copyrighted work to provide a service, but when the core of what's being "provided" consists in the copyrighted work being 'acted' or 'played', to paying customers (the statute itself exempts performance that does not occur for pay, nor for commercial purposes), in a way that these customers can readily perceive (but that need not in any way result in a 'copy' of the work being conveyed - copy and public performance are distinct rights under the law!)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Arnt 8y agoI misunderstood you in the same way as hlandau. Perhaps you could explain what you meant in different words? A concrete example might help.
- kemitchell 8y agoI've heard that the drafters of AGPL wanted to "synthesize" a nonexistent public performance right. But I'm not aware of any US case law interpreting 17 USC 106(4) that way.
- antt 8y ago>Copyright is just that, copyright. It's not readright, useright, flyright or workforright. It is that. There is a reason why IBM got an exception from the JSON license to do evil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs&feature=youtu.be&t=41m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs&feature=youtu.be...