They say three’s the charm. Well, three is definitely the proof that some pirates really do lack intelligence.
Here’s a comment posted on an eBay seller’s site:
—quote—
Legal Stuff: I have sole re-sell rights to this material under GNU licensing and i have permission from the Licensee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
I have complete Re-sell rights from the licensee’s authority.
—end quote—
Let’s clear up something real fast—while you, the seller on EBay, are the licensee…the licensee’s authority is the FSF - Free Software Foundation—creator of the GNU License.
—quote—
I have complete Re-sell rights from the licensee’s authority.
—end quote—
This claims you have the resell rights of those CDs granted to you by the FSF. Interesting and a contradiction.
When an organization supports someone, it means the supported activity is okay by the organization’s standards. Does the FSF support your activity?
I find that claim alone amusing in that it is in direct violation of everything the FSF stands for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation
—quote—
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a non-profit corporation founded by Richard Stallman on 4 October 1985 to support the free software movement, a copyleft-based movement which aims to promote the universal freedom to create, distribute and modify computer software. The FSF is incorporated in Massachusetts, USA.
—end quote—
This organization created and holds power of the GNU, GPL and the likes.
Maybe you better contact the FSF and see what the FSF really thinks of your making a buck by selling a CD of unauthorized copyright protected work while hiding behind the GNU license without proper documentation and claiming you have the support of the Licensee’s authority.
I’d like to see a copy of the legal documentation granting you those resell rights, please.
Apparently, someone didn’t read beyond the first paragraph or research the purpose and content of the GNU and its creator/s.
Did you read that you cannot add works under a GNU License that are not approved by the original author/copyright holder? You might want to invest in an attorney because you are selling illegal goods on EBay under a misused license and your PayPal account and anything it is attached to—like your bank account—can be frozen until the investigation is complete.
Claiming you have permission from the Licensee’s authority means that the FSF is are going to back you when a judge asks you to produce proof that you have legal permission to put all those books together and sell them under the GNU license/guidelines.
The FSF did not intend the GNU/GPL to allow anyone to make a profit as GNU contributors do so with the confidence that their work benefits the whole world and remains free.
Did you get a signed and notarized statement from every author whose books are on those CDs? If not, guess what? You have violated copyright and even the copyleft, GNU and GPL cannot save you.
Who gave you the resell rights? It couldn’t have been the FSF because the FSF never held legal copyright to the CD content from the start. Did the authors? I seriously doubt that. Produce the statements, prove it. You’ll have to in court.
Who gave you the distribution rights? It couldn’t have been the FSF because the FSF never held any resell rights unless each copyright owner individually gave the resell rights to the FSF and then it would have been the master resell rights, not the normal resell rights, in order for you to distribute the CDs in the manner you are using. Did the publishers under contract to those authors? Right. You know, there is a publisher that loves to take people to court for stuff like this and once they sink their teeth in, there’s no letting go.
Do you leave the covers on those books? The GNU license says everything must stay intact and any changes must be logged. Removal of the covers violates the GNU license you are touting so the covers must be there. Do you have the signed and notarized statements from each artist involved? You’re going to need all those signed statements of permission in court because if you don’t have signed and notarized statements of permission, the GNU is null and void.
As I said before, GNU contributors do so with the confidence that their work benefits the whole world and remains free.
Your selling of something, claiming the GNU license gives you the right to do so, means you’re:
1-failing to meet the guidelines of the GNU by compiling unauthorized works,
—and—
2-violating the GNU license by exploiting the product—exactly what the GNU was designed to protect from since its inception.
I’m pretty sure the organization would not approve of you trashing what they stand for.
And if you want to change to the GPL—the General Public License, part of the GNU—read on as I covered that also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
—quote—
The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU Project.
—end quote—
—and—
—quote—
The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL’d work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.
This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.
—end quote—
—and—
—quote—
Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work.
—end quote—
I’ll reiterate a few points:
—quote—
GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license.
—end quote—
—and—
—quote—
Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work.
—end quote—
—and—
—quote—
Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.
—end quote—
That means money cannot be made from sale of the GNU/GPL protected work because it violates the GNU/GPL.
—and—
Works not authorized by a contributor cannot be included in the GNU/GPL protected work because it violates the GPU/GPL.
I guess all that means you have made the GNU license null and void so what you are doing is called fencing, selling stolen property, illegal activity. I wonder what PayPal and the IRS are going to say?
How is it possible, do you think, that this vendor can possible own the copyrights of both Stieg Larsson's and Stephanie Meyers' works.
ReplyDeletehttp://myworld.ebay.com/ebook_pdf/
One, I could understand. Both? No!
Also selling "more than 10" copies of Bree Tanner, also Justin Cronin, and Janet Evanovich, and Charlaine Harris, and Glenn Beck.
And she writes:
"Ebay Staff: I am authorized to list this content. The description, listing, and all images belong to me. All eBay rules and regulations have been met and followed. According to applicable law, I have permission to list this content."
And the kicker is, EBAY believes her!
I have two questions: Where and how savvy are eBay's attorney/s?
ReplyDeleteLegally, to cover their backside, eBay should ask for proof of the claimed permission as they might be a little stunned to discover they are facilitating pirating.
Without knowing exactly what is posted on that CD, I can't say for sure, but it is absolutely 100% clear that you can resell GPL'd works.
ReplyDeleteThat means money cannot be made from sale of the GNU/GPL protected work because it violates the GNU/GPL.
This is 100% wrong. There is nothing wrong with charging people for software/documentation released under the GPL, so long as the distribution comports with the terms of the license. The "free" part of free software refers to free as in speech, not free as in price:
"Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere."
It's quite clear that you can charge for distribution under the GPL.
It's a stupid claim to say that you have permission to release something under the GPL when you don't. But you don't make yourself seem any smarter when you claim that the GPL doesn't allow you to charge for software.
And as to your comment:
Legally, to cover their backside, eBay should ask for proof of the claimed permission as they might be a little stunned to discover they are facilitating pirating.
Legally, to cover their backside, eBay's obligations extend to complying with the DMCA.
I don't approve of piracy, but what you're doing is of dubious legality, too: it could well be defamatory, if the person you finger is not the one responsible; and it borders on cyberstalking, which is illegal in most states.
The fact that someone may be engaged in criminal activity is no defense against a charge of cyberstalking.
It’s nice that the free statement was revised and not connected with or was unintentionally overlooked within the information I had previously gathered from the GNU/GPL site when I wrote this so on that fact I stand corrected. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThe contents on that specific CD were hundreds of eBooks under legal contract between various authors and publishers, none of which gave anyone permission to compile a CD to sell on eBay. This fact already null and voids the GNU/GPL alone.
It is fact the GNU/GPL does not protect someone compiling a collection of eBooks under legal contract between an author and a publisher and placed for sale where the only one who profits is the seller who does not have permission to do so in the first place.
What exactly am I doing that is —quote—of dubious legality—end quote?
Revealing factual information? Last I know such was legal.
Fact: A certain woman’s distribution of a certain eBook revealed her own ISP to the world. Had she read the book as she claimed, she would have seen her ISP and name embedded in the footer as per her click on the agreement button when she purchased the eBook from the publisher. The fact she uploaded and distributed her single purchased copy of that eBook to the world was her own decision and proof of her illegal distribution.
Fact: As for the other names being revealed, there is such a thing as ISP capture done by sites one uploads to/downloads from which are put into effect to protect the site one is uploading to/downloading from.
—quote—defamatory, if the person you finger is not the one responsible—end quote.
Legally, pirating unauthorized copyright protected material is theft, therefore saying piracy is theft or calling a pirate a thief—especially when so many admit they know pirating is illegal/stealing—is not defamation. If the pirate admits what they are doing is wrong, am I wrong in revealing what they themselves claim or reveal? You should visit some of the pirate sites and see for yourself how pirates explain removing protective measures in order to pirate—and they do say pirate, not share—a book.
If the pirating activity reveals a pirate’s ISP and is made seeable by the public and I Google the ISP, what am I doing that they themselves have not done, especially since anyone can do what I did from the public search engines for free?
Personally, I don’t see how I can give pirates a bad name when they’ve done such a fantastic job themselves.
—quote—borders on cyberstalking, which is illegal in most states. —end quote—
ReplyDelete— From the U.S. Department of Justice quote— Although there is no universally accepted definition of cyberstalking, the term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally involves harassing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. Most stalking laws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence against the victim; others include threats against the victim's immediate family; and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conduct constitute an implied threat. While some conduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegal stalking, such behavior may be a prelude to stalking and violence and should be treated seriously. http://www.cyberguards.com/CyberStalking.html —end quote—
Since I am simply researching information that is given to me and posting what is discovered via public channels, how am I stalking? I stay here on my blog and information is given to me to verify, which means I am not harassing or committing threatening behavior in any way nor repeatedly. I am not continuing contact of any individual.
I haven’t hurt or hunted anyone and I don’t contact anyone. However, I am contacted by many. I have the right to shield my sources because you as well as I and anyone else reading this knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that if a name is revealed, there are countless pirates that will attack and destroy that source.
You seem more offended by the few reports on this blog and less offended by the massive act of piracy as your comments are directed against me with one small statement of you not approving of piracy. This is my heartfelt support and most able-bodied attempt to hinder on-line theft as well as to support those hurt by the act of piracy.
What are you doing?