>> Gates will probably sell many of the images on CD, where it will
>> be cheaper and more efficient to buy and use GAtes's CD than it
>> will be to copy it oneself. His product will be a service: store,
>> locate and retrieve the image; not an IP product: the image itself.
>>
>> Buford C. Terrell
>
> And will Gates sell his CD with a shrink-wrap license forbidding
> duplication and distribution of the particular images thereon?
> Assuming that he can enforce the license, I figure that the resulting
> contract would pass muster under $301. An action for infringement of
> a license requires the plaintiff to prove an element not necessary for
> a (c) infringement suit. The license right thus ought not be
> considered equivalent to any of the rights set forth in $106. Even if
> this moots $301, though, the Supremacy Clause remains a problem.
>
> Tom W. Bell
> Program in Law and Technology
> Univ. of Dayton School of Law
> <tomwbell[_at_]aol.com>
The whole point is that it doesn't matter. It will still be cheaper and more efficient to go back to a single source and rebuy from Gates than it will be to hunt down free copies that have been mirrored elsewhere. If I want a picture of a left-handed monkey wrench wielded by a left-handed monkey and know that I can probably get one for single use from $5 from www.bettman.com, why should I waste time looking for a free one elsewhere and why should Gates worry about a little leakage when what he is selling is comprehensiveness and convenience, but images. Copyright is almost wholly irrevelant to the whole operation.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
****NOTE NEW ADDRESS****
Buford C. Terrell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:18 GMT