Your citations to cases that aren't analogous aren't convincing. Pam
Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 +1 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com On 7/16/19 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Story end: > > https://www.itassetmanagement.net/2016/10/31/secondary-software-2016/ > https://www.usedsoft.com/en/lawyer-christian-ballke-on-the-legal-basis-for-the-trade-in-used-software/ > > Funny: > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110929014241932 > ("Psystar Loses its Appeal; Licensees Have No First-Sale Rights; Costs > Awarded to Apple ~ pj") > > "But there is one more important result here. Do you remember all the > predictions on message boards all over the web by anti-GPL activists > like Alexander Terekhov that someone could get a copy of Linux, under > the GPL, and then make copies and sell them under another license, > under the first sale doctrine? That fantasy has just died a permanent > death. It was never true that one can do that. But now we can prove it > with this Psystar ruling. Yes, Psystar can ask the US Supreme Court to > review this. But seriously, what are the odds?" > > Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um 19:55 Uhr schrieb Alexander Terekhov > <herr.al...@gmail.com <mailto:herr.al...@gmail.com>>: > > BTW, after Vernor v. Autodesk there was UMG vs. Augusto: > > > http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/01/court-rules-that-its-legal-to-sell-promotional-cds/ > > > See also: > > > https://www.pcworld.com/article/258720/eu_court_rules_resale_of_used_software_licenses_is_legal_even_online.html > > > Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek > <pam...@chesteklegal.com <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>>: > > On 7/13/2019 6:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> The thing is that 17 USC 117 makes the act of running/using >> software unrestricted and 17 USC 109 also severely impedes >> ability to control distribution as far as copyright is >> concerned. So, you'll have to stick to contractual covenants >> and fight against >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach ... good luck >> with that :) > > In both cases, only if you are the owner of a copy. "Licensees > are not entitled to the essential step defense." /Vernor v. > Autodesk, Inc./, 621 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). It is a > rare decision that holds that a party is an owner of a copy of > software rather than a licensee. > > Pam > > Pamela S. Chestek > Chestek Legal > PO Box 2492 > Raleigh, NC 27602 > 919-800-8033 > pam...@chesteklegal.com <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com> > www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com> > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org> > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
