|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:19 PM EDT |
But how do you connect this form of compensation with the list of infringing
activities in the statute? Do you argue that every sort of agreement amounts to
a "sale"? Or are there agreements which are not sales?
I can see how that may apply to Google. The users' and handset makers behavior
contribute to Google's business model. Even if money is not in the contract
Google ends-up being profitable on a monetary standpoint.
My speculation/question is how about the not for profit communities and their
individual members? I expand the scope of the question outside of Android. Think
of Debian or Mozilla. Do licenses count as "selling" in this context?
What would be the basis to find these people infringing given the list of
infringing activities in the statute?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
Uh, no. There's nothing in the license that says you MUST change the source, or
redistribute it.
Are you seriously arguing that accepting a EULA is part of my compensation to
the rights holders?
You're stretching the terms of compensation pretty thin if you ask me. When you
borrow a book, album, game, software or movie from the library you agree to
abide by copyright terms of each work. For instance, each book can have
different "all right reserved" or CC "some rights reserved",
etc. This dictates what one can do with the work. How much revenue is that
generating the rights holder?
If I download the dev kit containing an Android emulator and place it on a
school's computers -- The very next day hundreds of people agree to the EULA,
and more after them. How much "compensation" is there exactly? What
of Apple and Microsoft? Nearly all schools have many copies of their software,
and we're forcing our children to "compensate" these companies! It's
a violation of child labor laws!
How much compensation exactly? You can't say? That's because there is none.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
