Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Legal Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.
Permalink for comment 388942
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Groklaw and RMS
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 23:39 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Heh, even RMS himself disagrees with PJ, as he argues the first sale doctrine is a good thing. If the foremost GPL advocate says first sale is important, then you can see where people like me are coming from when we say PJ's lost it when she argues first sale is dangerous for the GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

The third error: maximizing publishers' power
Once the publishers have obtained assent to the policy goal of maximizing publication output at any cost, their next step is to infer that this requires giving them the maximum possible powers — making copyright cover every imaginable use of a work, or applying some other legal tool such as “shrink wrap” licenses to equivalent effect. This goal, which entails the abolition of “fair use” and the “right of first sale,” is being pressed at every available level of government, from states of the U.S. to international bodies.

This step is erroneous because strict copyright rules obstruct the creation of useful new works. For instance, Shakespeare borrowed the plots of some of his plays from other plays published a few decades before, so if today's copyright law had been in effect, his plays would have been illegal.

Even if we wanted the highest possible rate of publication, regardless of cost to the public, maximizing publishers' power is the wrong way to get it. As a means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating.

Reply Score: 2