In fact, the party using a license to copy a work (in this case, it would appear that's the defendant) has no right to copy the work and distribute those copies except as granted by the license. If the license does not grant that right, it is the sole right of the copyright holder to make and distribute copies. Therefore, if the defendant is making and distributing copies for which he has not been granted license, he is in fact infringing on the rights of the copyright holder.
This is much the same as someone coming into my home uninvited. It does not keep me from entering the home, but it does violate my exclusive right to grant access only to those whom I choose. I this case, the plaintiff chose to invite everyone who followed the terms of the license to share in his legal access to distribute copies, but that should not mean he has no control over keeping violators of the license from infringement on his rights.
So in the long and short of it, am I to understand that the whole mess JMRI is going through is because they made an assumption that it was clear from the text of the license and the actions of the defendant that there was a breach of the license and therefore copyright infringement, when the plaintiff should have plainly stated that as part of the complaint? Am I still overlooking something?
In reply to Re^4: Artistic license being tested in court?
by mr_mischief
in thread Artistic license being tested in court?
by mr_mischief
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |