"If Psystar legally purchased a separate license for each one, but still used a single master copy, is that really infringing?"
The right of sale gives us the right to sell our physical media, even if the content is copyrighted. It does not give any right to transfer licenses to third party.
That's what Psystar was doing. It was installing a single copy of OSX on multiple computers, which as the court pointed out, was a violation of law. The mere fact that Psystar also bought licenses for each installation is irrelevant to the first sale doctrine.
In the same way, I don't have the right to sell copies I burned of a DVD even though I bought a separate license. Maybe under contract law that might make sense, but it has nothing to do with the first sale doctrine.
This came out last February. The IFPI stated exactly why it had not sued Google. It was not because Google was somehow different from the Pirate Bay or that Google was somehow exempt under the law. The sole reason the IFPI gave is that, unlike the Pirate Bay, Google plays along:
"We have approached Google and told them about this. We have asked them if they want to be our opponents or our partners. We have ten people in London working with them on a daily basis [to make illegal music unavailable]. If Google had indicated they would be our opponent, we would have taken them to court."
In other words, if the Pirate Bay is guilty, so is Google. But Google gets a reprieve as long as it plays the IFPI's game.
When I was in law school my international law class was taught by a very nice french lady who despised common law legal systems. She constantly raved how most of Europe used a much more efficient civil law system where courts never had to interpret the law, they simply followed the law.
I can't help but wonder which law specifically says that the police can randomly seize and keep property "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances."
Think of it this way. Despite the numerous constitutional and due process safeguards, the trial, the impartial jury, the presumption of innocence, the countless appeals and the rehearings. Despite all of that, innocent people are still put to death for crimes they never committed.
Does anyone think the safe guards the UK puts in place to weed out the innocent will actually be better?!
Mike your facts are all wrong and your argument is completely backward. The purpose of patents is to promote innovation. The stronger the patent law, the more innovation we'll see. That goes without saying, right?
Thus, if there is a problem with people not getting enough of a vaccine, the solution is to strengthen our obviously weak patent laws, not to bypass them.
"MR. JAKES: I think our economy was based on industrial process."
That was a very telling quote. Jakes is acknowledging that corporations do not make money by inventing and building physical things anymore, but by shifting money around in such a way that the corporations end up with more than the average citizen. The need for such asinine patents is to ensure that no one else follows your method for ripping people off.
This is a pretty good explanation on how patents harm innovation. But what about the other side of the coin? How does the patents in this circumstance help innovation? Did the "friend" in this story dig through some patent database to discover the amazing software patent which lead to his coding? Of course not. The granting of the patent helped absolutely no one other than the grantee.
Mike, can I have the IP addresses of those retards who voted in favor of this bill so I can track them down and beat them with an aluminum bat? Thanks!
On the post: Psystar Loses Big To Apple
The right of sale gives us the right to sell our physical media, even if the content is copyrighted. It does not give any right to transfer licenses to third party.
That's what Psystar was doing. It was installing a single copy of OSX on multiple computers, which as the court pointed out, was a violation of law. The mere fact that Psystar also bought licenses for each installation is irrelevant to the first sale doctrine.
In the same way, I don't have the right to sell copies I burned of a DVD even though I bought a separate license. Maybe under contract law that might make sense, but it has nothing to do with the first sale doctrine.
On the post: Newspaper Industry Lawyers Attack Fair Use, Claim Google Is Illegal
Re: They're not just missing how google works
These lawyers are either ignorant about how this works or are outright lying. Google will completely ignore your site if you so wish.
On the post: Another Example Of Copyright Law Gone Mad: Series Of Lawsuits Over Telephone Jingle
Re: Wish I could
Michigan has a trademark on being a place to die!
On the post: Another Example Of Copyright Law Gone Mad: Series Of Lawsuits Over Telephone Jingle
Re: Re:
On the post: Another Example Of Copyright Law Gone Mad: Series Of Lawsuits Over Telephone Jingle
It's a hilarious read.
On the post: Would Google Be Liable Under The Pirate Bay Ruling?
In other words, if the Pirate Bay is guilty, so is Google. But Google gets a reprieve as long as it plays the IFPI's game.
On the post: Police Allowed To Hang Onto Seized Computers For Anti-Piracy Group, Despite No Gov't Prosecution
Re: Re:
On the post: Police Allowed To Hang Onto Seized Computers For Anti-Piracy Group, Despite No Gov't Prosecution
Re: Re:
On the post: Police Allowed To Hang Onto Seized Computers For Anti-Piracy Group, Despite No Gov't Prosecution
I can't help but wonder which law specifically says that the police can randomly seize and keep property "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances."
On the post: UK Gov't Official: Innocent People Won't Get Kicked Off The Internet; Trust Us
Does anyone think the safe guards the UK puts in place to weed out the innocent will actually be better?!
On the post: What If You Could Recreate Live Performances By Dead Artists On A Computer?
Re: Riddle me this, Batman...
On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?
Re: no
"oh, no. very, very few people are dying"
Quick question, how many people do our patent laws have to kill before it becomes enough of a problem? Thanks!
On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?
Thus, if there is a problem with people not getting enough of a vaccine, the solution is to strengthen our obviously weak patent laws, not to bypass them.
On the post: Justices Show Supreme Skepticism About Broad Business Model Patents
That was a very telling quote. Jakes is acknowledging that corporations do not make money by inventing and building physical things anymore, but by shifting money around in such a way that the corporations end up with more than the average citizen. The need for such asinine patents is to ensure that no one else follows your method for ripping people off.
On the post: Clear And Concise Explanation For Why Software Patents Harm Innovation
On the post: Retailers Still Want New Laws Blaming eBay For Shoplifting; Law Enforcement Isn't So Sure
On the post: Costume Designer Claims Riverdance Needs To Pay A Royalty For Every Performance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh?
I think the concept you're missing is called irony. It's sometimes used as a form of humor, another concept you don't seem to grasp.
Next >>