Re: Never ever send Pavel private mail unless you want him to publish

[David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:22:03 -0800, Adam J. Richter wrote:

>|         Under the aegis of the Moral Majority, Rev. Falwell?s 
conservative
>| lobbying group, Falwell sent copies of the Hustler article,
>together
>| with a letter soliciting donations to help finance his lawsuit
>against
>| Hustler, to 29,000 of the organization?s major contributors. 
 There
>| was no question that Falwell had copied the entire Hustler article
>but
>| for ?eight of the most offensive words,? without any attempt to
>| transform the original work.[30] Although the Ninth Circuit Court
>of
>| Appeals determined that copying the original to solicit funds for
>| Falwell?s lawsuit was clearly commercial,[31] it still ruled
>against
>| Hustler stating that Defendant?s use ?could not have diminished 
any
>| potential sales, interfered with the marketability of the parody 
or
>| fulfilled the demand for the original work.?[32] The Moral
>Majority?s
>| members, the Court observed, would ?probably not be counted among
>| Hustler?s readers,? and therefore the defendants, while profiting
>from
>| use of the copyrighted work, had not adversely affected the
>| plaintiff?s market for it.[33]

	There are really only two conclusions you can draw from this:

	1) This only applies to a situation where the primary purpose of the 
original publication is for the purposes of selling the item to 
produce revenue and therefore it's reasonable to judge the copyright 
violation on the basis of its affect on the sales of the original 
work, or

	2) You can violate copyright for commercial purposes so long as you 
don't cost the original publisher anything. In which case, any GPL 
violation is acceptable, since there's no "market" for a free work.

	DS