> First, "free" cannot be enforced. No consideration.
Copyright licencing does not require consideration. Try again.
>Second, you ignore my
> response. I said that if the machine screwed up, and spewed out too many
> sodas, the buyer could be liable for theft if they kept the "free" ones, or
> at least liable for unjust enrichment.
I ignore you when you make claims without citations. We're not discussing machine malfunction, anyway.
> Thus, the machine's actions are NOT
> attributed to the vendor and the vendor is NOT bound by the action. The ATM
> example is on point too. The fact that a machine screws up is NOT an excuse
> to keep excess money. There is NO contract, and the vendor is NOT bound by
> his machine's actions. Get it yet? I answered your question numerous
> times.
Kelly's web server did not "screw up". It acted both as it was designed to and as the HTTP specification says it should. I have already stated that if the web operator configures his server to require payment or block inline image requests, but a user circumvents those by exploiting unintended bugs in the code, that they are committing copyright infringement. My licencing argument is totally consistent with this, since their HTTP transaction would not support a claim to have a licence. In fact, it would probably document their illegal behavior.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT