[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''
- From: Roy Murphy <murphy(at)panix.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 17:28:53 -0400
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
'Twas brillig when Michael A Rolenz scrobe:
> if it is a license then who did she negociate it with?...If USENET,
> then usenet has a whole set of conditions (as another post pointed
> out) and republishing stuff is part of it.....If it's a implied
> non exclusive license then she can't later try to make it an
> exclusive one. ...
That's one of the differences between a license and a contract. I
contract requires "a meeting of the minds" or actual agreement (as
well as offer and acceptance and consideration). Many licenses are
contracts, but they do not have to be.
By virtue of having voluntarially posted the story to Usenet, she
consents to the events which posting imply: that the message will
be duplicated among servers participating in Usenet subject to the
Distribution:, Expires: and, probably, X-archive: headers and that
the material will be distributed to Usenet readers.
Distribution in other forms, such as the web, may or may not be
included in such a non-exclusive license. It would really require
a court to settle such a dispute.
A "non-exclusive" licence means that the licensee (Sara Glover)
may license the material to others. By virtue of posting to Usenet,
one does not relinquish the right to otherwise license your material.
Roy Murphy \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses>
email@example.com \ http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html>