Compare dependency graphs
Put two dependency graphs next to each other and read what the second one states differently from the first: the axioms it adds, removes or relates another way, and the default rules it adds, drops or changes, each with its legal basis, its status and a plain explanation. Nothing shown here is legal advice.
United States default rules, version 2, against DALICC deontic dependency graph, version 2.
Axioms: 0 added, 0 removed, 0 changed. Default rules: 0 added, 2 removed, 0 changed.
What the second graph adds
Nothing: every statement of DALICC deontic dependency graph is in United States default rules too.
What the second graph does not have
Default rules 2
| Status | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
dalicc:reverseEngineerForInteroperability
Reverse engineer for interoperability
|
Granted by default | United States | 17 U.S.C. 1201(f), and Sega v. Accolade 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000), under which intermediate copying to reach the unprotected elements needed for interoperability is fair use. Bowers v. Baystate Technologies 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003) enforced a contract term against reverse engineering, so the rule is not marked unwaivable | Proposed |
| What this rule does: A licence that says nothing about reverse engineering for interoperability is read as allowing it. United States law exempts reverse engineering for interoperability from the anti-circumvention rules, and the Ninth Circuit has held the intermediate copying it needs to be fair use (Sega v Accolade; Sony v Connectix); other courts have enforced a contract term against reverse engineering (Bowers v Baystate), so no finding is reported when a licence forbids it. Combining a licence that is silent about it with one that prohibits it shows a conflict marked as coming from this rule. | ||||
dalicc:sellCopy
Sell copy
|
Granted by default | United States | 17 U.S.C. 109(a): the owner of a lawfully made copy may sell or otherwise dispose of that copy without the authority of the copyright owner. Vernor v. Autodesk 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010): a person who receives a copy under a licence that reserves title and restricts transfer is a licensee, not an owner. Capitol Records v. ReDigi 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018): the doctrine does not cover the resale of a digital file that requires a new copy to be made | Proposed |
| What this rule does: A licence that says nothing about reselling a copy is read as allowing the owner of a lawfully made copy to sell that copy on. The first-sale doctrine of section 109(a) of the Copyright Act protects the owner of a copy, not a licensee: where a licence reserves title and restricts transfer, courts may find no sale took place (Vernor v Autodesk), and it does not cover resale of a digital file that requires a new copy to be made (Capitol Records v ReDigi). Combining a licence that is silent about it with one that prohibits it shows a conflict marked as coming from this rule. | ||||
What both have in a different form
Nothing: no statement is in both graphs in a different form.