> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > > And run-time is post-distribution while compile-time is > > pre-distribution, in the case of distribution of dynamically linked > > binaries. And no copyright-based licence has anything to say about > > what end users can do with the code they legally obtained (except > > redistribution). > > We're not talking about an isolated personal action here. We're talking > about many thousands, if not millions of copies which are distributed > by people who know what the end result is going to be. > > To see what that means, check out > http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightInfringement.html#con
Yep, I checked it out. Here it is c. CONTRIBUTORY AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY Direct participation in infringing activity is not a prerequisite for infringement liability, as the Copyright Act grants to copyright owners not only the right to exercise the exclusive rights, but also the right "to authorize" the exercise of those rights. The inclusion of the right "to authorize" was "intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of contributory infringers" -- those who do not directly exercise the copyright owner's rights, but "authorize" others to do so. [...] "exercise the copyright owner's rights" means basically copying and distributing the copyrighted material. But my main point here is that dynamically loading into virtual memory an executable image from a legally obtained copy of a library object file and an application executable that was (by the distributor) dynamically linked against a copy that same library object file and thereafter legally distributed to the user, does not infringe "the copyright owner's [of the library] rights". We're talking about libraries that can be publically distributed, or maybe about libraries that are not free but which the user has purchased. Really the act of loading is not in itself illegal. It would be if the end result would be distributed without permission from the author of the library, but that is not the case. And a million times no copyright infringement still makes no copyright infringement. I repeat my question: could Microsoft forbid our "tax" the distribution of binaries that are executable under MS Windows? To complete the quote: If someone has the "right and ability" to supervise the infringing action of another, and that right and ability "coalesce with an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials -- even in the absence of actual knowledge" that the infringement is taking place -- the "supervisor" may be held vicariously liable for the infringement. Vicarious liability is based on a connection to the direct infringer (not necessarily to the infringing activity). "infringing action", "infringement", "infringer", "infringing activity", its clear that without infringement there's no vicarious liability. The best known copyright cases involving vicarious liability are the "dance hall" cases, where vicarious liability was found when dance hall owners allowed the unauthorized public performance of musical works by the bands they hired, even when the owners had no knowledge of the infringements and had even expressly warned the bands not to perform copyrighted works without a license from the copyright owners. I maintain that unless the distribution of dynamically linked binaries itself is considered a copyright infringement, there's no vicarious liability either. And to come back to the static/dynamic distinction: an obvious and relevant difference with distribution of statically linked binaries is that the user can execute those without also having the library object file. Marc van Leeuwen Universite de Poitiers http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
