Re: Re: Kelly v. Arriba Soft (new opinion from 9thCir.)

But my question: is the vending machine "vending a tangible" while the server is following instructions according to pre programmed instructions to disassemble content parts from a tangible(the file placed into the servers serving domain), to select which of its parts it elects to work with, to reorder the selected parts, to re package for transmission (the thing reassembled may not even be same from server to server). Different servers and different browsers end to end the permission was granted to amend, use, destroy, reassemble, .. how can this permission be said to be retaining copyright? RETENTION of copyright in what?     

sterling

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Robert F. Bodi wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bryan Taylor" <bryan_w_taylor[_at_]yahoo.com>
> To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property"
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 11:35 AM
> Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Kelly v. Arriba Soft (new opinion from 9thCir.)
>
>
> >
> > --- "Robert F. Bodi" <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm through with this discussion, except to say that you really do need
> to
> > > read posts before commenting on them. First, I NEVER made the blanket
> > > statement that machines can't bind somebody to a contract. I did say,
> > > however, that it is NOT enough to show the machine's action. One must
> also
> > > show additional elements. Such as intent. It is clear that, when one
> puts
> > > money in a machine, they are showing an intent to purchase. And the
> machine
> > > has writing that offers cans for a certain amount. But if the machine
> > > screws up, and spews out a whole lot of cans, guess what? If the person
> > > takes them all without paying for them, he is STEALING! Get it yet? I
> > > doubt it.
> >
> > Even after *three* attempts to make it clear that the point of the vending
> > machine example is to focus on the **VENDOR'S** intent, embodied in the
> > configuration of the machine, you still focus on the client instead of the
> > server. The point is that the candy buyer is analogous to the web client
> and
> > the machine's vendor is analogous to the web author. The only difference
> is
> > that sale of a good requires consideration, whereas a copyright licence
> does
> > not. If the posted price is "free", your argument actually proves my
> point.
>
> First, "free" cannot be enforced. No consideration. 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. 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.
>
> -Bodi
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
Received on Fri Aug 29 2003 - 19:30:40 GMT