Demon & DeCSS
Dave Bird
ukcrypto at maillist.ox.ac.uk
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:43:04 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In article <20000926103920.B8802@hyena.skygate.co.uk>, Pete Chown writes
>Philip Rowlands wrote:
>>
>> I think the question is; under UK law, does granting a license without
>> consideration (payment) make that license revocable in the event that
>> the copyright ownership is transferred/sold?
>
>I've wondered this as well. I suspect it may be possible to revoke a
>gratuitous licence. However, the doctrine of estoppel may protect
>people who rely on such a gratuitous promise.
>Essentially estoppel takes effect if a person: (i) relies on a promise
>which is not legally enforceable, and (ii) would incur a detriment if
>the promise was broken. Then the courts will not allow the other
>person to break the promise. So a company which relied on some piece
>of GPL software might be able to claim estoppel if the licence was
>withdrawn. It is obvious that the company would incur extra expense
>by having to replace the software with something else.
>
>Similarly someone who extended a piece of GPL software would incur a
>detriment if the licence to the original code was withdrawn.
>This sounds really straightforward; unfortunately estoppel is quite
>complicated, and it may be hard to persuade the courts to extend it to
>a new situation. It might be worth a try, though, if ever this
>situation arose.
Yes, it is complicated, in that the basic principle of estoppel
is that you "cannot have your cake and eat it" in legal disputes
i.e. if you advance an argument -- whether or not factually true --
to win one case, you cannot advance the opposite argument
at a different time. (For example a company which got advantage
and revenue from the idea that a building was haunted, tho' haunting
has no objective reality, were told they could not get a ruling in
another case on the basis that of course it was NOT haunted).
You may not operate contract by going back on your own words,
regardless of whether they are factually true, where other
people are entitled to rely on them in good faith.
If you put something into public domain in America, I doubt that
could ever be stopped for the issuing of new copies from America;
though you might be prevented from issuing new copies here.
Likewise if you give ownership severally to many people in good
faith, asking that the voluntarily pay some remuneration into
a charity, I doubt that their ownership could be retrospectively
cancelled. It must be full ownership, though, not license hanging
upon your continued ownership. See my other reply below, at the end.
In article <000001c0277f$c02bce00$f2957ed4@compaq>, David Swarbrick:
Dave Bird:
>>
>> This is what troubles me about America, that the state and its courts
>> can literally steal your words out of your mouth then forbid you to
>> copy "their" property: a piece of fascism that makes me think
>> recourse to dynamite must be better than this.
>>
>>
>> So how about if I put...
>>
>> "At this moment I grant irrevocable license and ownership to anyone
>> interested that they can use this material & license unlimited further
>> copies of it, asking that they include this cond'n on each copy made:
>> since transfer may be disputed anyway if it is considered no value was
>> received for it, the issuer (without relinquishing his ownership) asks
>> each user to make a voluntary payment of at least ten US dollars -- in
>> dollar bills, dollar money orders, or dollar travellers cheques -- not
>> to him but cashable to Save The Aardvarks, a US registered charity, at
>> POBox 4021 Arcata Calif CA70001; each such license is made under the
>> law of the country where it is issued and, where that law includes
>> 'public domain', the document is put into the public domain there."
>
>
>The difficulty lies in the first line. To grant a licence is dependent upon
>keeping reserve ownership. To transfer ownership is to give away the power
>to set any terms for a licence.
I agree, and sorry for a very long and rewritten post on a complex
subject; if I had days more time I could make it shorter and simpler.
If I say "anyone interested may take ownership for themselves
and make copies...." then I may only **ASK** out of goodwill
that they circulate on the same basis. I have lost
control totally (as with public domain); I cannot complain
about offensive, distorted, or commercial use if it is open
to anyone to use it in any way. The only thing that deters
people from selling copies for their own benefit is that many
others are rightfully giving it away free. As I wrote below....
>> One paradox with the above situation is that if I give the license
>> unconditionally then I cannot instruct the licensee in any way....
>> the only thing that mandates his honesty is the existence of many
>> rival licensees who will mostly comply. Copyleft is better.
>> (Doing it the above way also loses control completely: you can't
>> complain if it turns up in distorted form, or as part of
>> a commercial product).
>>
>> "CopyLeft" works in a different way. I as originator CONTINUE
>> TO OWN THE DOCUMENT. I license it for use under particular conditions,
>> and subject to those conditions being included in any sub-licensing,
>> and I CAN INSIST ON THOSE CONDITIONS BECAUSE I AM STILL THE OWNER.
>> In other words, if someone starts selling copies of my freely-licensed
>> material to the unwary who don't know how to get it free, then I can
>> sue them for breach of my copyright -- that was not included in what
>> they were licensed to do. It follows that, if I owe creditors the
>> value of the work, then ownership can be taken from me. I doubt that
>> would end licenses already granted long before the debt existed.
>>
>>
>> Strawb would have to enlighten us whether the sub-licensing would need
>> payment to charity so there was a consideration. However I believe the
>> license says "this license is granted under the laws of the USA where
>> the license text was drafted", and such is not needed there.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone have any thoughts on the revised form given below?
>> Actually, if I can have a second bite of the cherry, it is probably
>> best to jurisdiction-shop and use public domain first of all
>> then add the extra safeguards.
>>
>>
>> "This document is published in conjunction with the site
>> owners on http://www.xxx.xxxxxxx, in America, under American law,
>> where all copyright ownership is renounced into the public domain.
>> If you copy a version from a territory which does not have public
>> domain, then the issuer irrevocably GIVES each interested person
>> their own share in ownership to use this document plus issue further
>> copies and ASKS that they choose to put this same term on all copies
>> they issue; the issuer does not currently have debts which are likely
>> to be satisfied by the value of this copyright, but has undisputed
>> ownership at this time in the issuing country. If ownership is disputed
>> in your country's law, then it may forbid you to issue your own copies.
>> If you copy a version from a territory without public domain then
>> the transfer might not be recognised without payment, so in such cases
>> the issuer ASKS each new owner to send at least ten dollars (in dollar
>> bills, travellers cheques, or money orders) as voluntary payment for it
>> not to him but cashable to Save The Aardvarks, a US registered charity,
>> at blah blah blah."
>>
>>
>> While this would not stop authorities from stamping their foot
>> and saying "we have seized ownership here by force", it would probably
>> make any such supposed ownership worthless because of the impossibility
>> of cancelling all the other existing ownerships. They cannot stop
>> you placing a copy in America which is public domain in America;
>> after that they can say "but we have seized ownership in Britain",
>> and see how far it gets them.
>>
>> What is the situation if you get something shipped from a place
>> where Joe says he properly has rights to distribute to you,
>> into Britain where Bill says he owns the rights for all copying
>> in Britain? an interesting one, I suspect. Does the Berne convention
>> say or imply that what is properly copied in the copying jurisdiction,
>> a signatory country, is then proper to have and re-sell in a
>> receiving country which disputed the right to make copies there??
>> Surely that is all they could do, stop copies being issued there
>> but stand by and watch them being legitimately imported from abroad.
>>
>> Could they break the original issuing into public domain in America;
>> almost certainly not. It would be valid and continue there. They could
>> try to seize control of copying domestically, but that would merely
>> result in the loggerheads situation above.
>>
>>
>> I love the sound of bullies getting their heads stomped in the morning!
>>
>>
>> - -- . ___ .
>> '-|:::|@\-[x]/__/| .-|:::|@\
>> ||--|"" . |__|/ ||--|"" .
>> '-|:::|@\ (")"""-. .-|:::|@\
>> --+--.(")"""-'
>> || |"" ||""| || |"" ' ' |""|
>>
>> DEMOCRACY: two wolves & a lamb LIBERTY: a lamb with a kalashnikov
>> voting what's for lunch contesting the vote
- --
^-^-^-@@-^-;-^ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
(..)__u news:alt.smoking.mooses
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBOdDuOH8v/Y5zkfRPEQJbLACeIWCfGKbYyxF3umPko0cT2G1AIZkAoL9j
C82N0Y+e2rr26lqDv4/F5IAx
=izwW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----