| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/19/2015 09:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But |
| 6 |
>>> we're talking about... |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> You're receiving a copy of it. You don't need a license to download |
| 11 |
>> something. You'll notice that even the RIAA doesn't sue people who |
| 12 |
>> download music - they sue people who UPLOAD it. They are on far more |
| 13 |
>> solid legal ground doing the latter. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Uhhhhhhhhhh |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> Please cite a law that says you're not allowed to receive a copy of a |
| 18 |
>> copyrighted work without a license. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> ยง 106 . Exclusive rights in copyrighted works |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this |
| 23 |
> title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with |
| 28 |
zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write it to |
| 29 |
disk. You end up with the same number of copies as you were given. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Cite a court case that upholds a claim otherwise? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
In any case, the Linux kernel authors have already given people |
| 34 |
permission to make unmodified copies of the kernel, which is all that |
| 35 |
is happening in step 1. So, this is not an essential element of my |
| 36 |
argument. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Rich |
Archives