RE: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appeals co urt

["Harold Eaton" <haceaton(at)hotmail.com>]

Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com> wrote:
>The situation there is more akin to someone who donates a
>painting to a public museam.  It is on display publically,
>but the painting (and all interests therein) is still owned
>by a private party.  Just because it is on public display
>doesn't mean somebody walking by can say "hey, this'd look
>good in my living room" and take it.

Sorry, viewing is not taking anything.
>
>This is what copyright law is all about: protecting the interests
>of people who own the works so that they feel safe in publishing
>them -- by definition an activity that involves making somethign
>publically (albiet not necessarily freely) available.

And putting it on a web serving it up to every "Get" request
*IS* making it FREELY available.
> >What you DON'T
> > do is sue the person who says "There is a public library
> > on 3rd street - it has the book you want indexed as Q103.456V,
>
>That much is equivilant to a link ...

Actually we can stop right there with a very minor twist:

... sue the person who says "Go to the public library on 3rd
street and get the book indexed as Q103.456V then look on
page 82."

Clearly THAT person is a thief, liar, and criminal copyright
abuser! Since that is *exactly* what an imbedded link is,
and you agree it's criminal evil.

An instruction is not equivalent to its execution, never has
been, never will be. Even the execution should be all right
if you've put up a server that responds to requests - that is
implied permission to use it.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.