They are clearly committing copyright infringement, but plenty of a copyright infringement happens in practice and it is tolerated by the copyright owners. This is not what I am objecting to though. I am objecting to the idea that Vizio has a contract with a user to give them the source code of their proprietary software. If Vizio ignore a license, in my mind there is no way for that license to establish a contract between Vizio and a user. How can there be a meeting of minds when Vizio's mind disagrees with the contract.
Courts started doing this because people were playing dumb in court to get out of contracts: "oh I didn't know I was agreeing to that"
So instead, courts started calling bullshit on it, and today judge things as: "look, you went along with the transaction as if you agreed to it and a reasonable person in your situation should have known you were agreeing to it, and that's good enough"
It sounds like you’re not aware of all of the facts of this specific case. The TV came with a notice stating that it used GPL’d software and offering to convey the source to anyone who wrote them. That’s a valid contract, which the SFC tried to act on. Vizio rebuffed them, so one of the issues before the court is a literal contract violation.
Isn’t it more that they have a contract with the developers of the GPL:ed code? But sure they can decide to break that contract and take the consequences of committing copyright infringement.
I understand, it’s not a direct contract, but they’re infringing on copyrighted material to create their software and not following what they agreed.
Expecting to benefit from copyright in their own product while ignoring the license of all the products they used, that’s what bothers me, it’s hypocrisy. It’s open sourced software, free like speech, not like beer.
In this specific case there _is_ a direct contract independent of the GPL. The TV came with a notice stating that it used GPL’d software and offering to convey the source to anyone who wrote them. That’s a valid contract, which the SFC tried to act on. Vizio rebuffed them, so one of the issues before the court is a literal contract violation.
What’s you’re saying is asinine and simply against the GPL terms. Using the GPL licensed software code without following its restrictions is theft.
Vizio then should stop using GPL licensed software or reach to a license agreement with them BEFORE selling any product that contains GPL license because that’s the license of the code they’re using.
Many games these days come with explicit terms allowing streaming of the game content, including the music. But this, and your argument, is not really very related to the case at hand.
In addition to the alleged GPL violations, there is a real contract dispute here. Vizio also included a written offer of source code to the GPLd components of their software with the television. The SFC tried to avail themselves of that offer by writing to the address given, but Vizio denied their request. It’s a straight forward open and shut contract case: Vizio made a credible offer (and thus created a contract) and then failed to uphold their end of the deal.
Debian previously got legal advice that screenshots (and presumably video) are derivative works of the apps/games that they are of, but that production/distribution of them under fair use doctrine may be allowed.
Bunch of YouTubers making some videos don’t change the copyright law, and a bad example doesn’t negate the fact that Vizio stole GPL licensed software by not abiding with the terms.
Sure, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but contracts are not law. In fact, the law requires a "meeting of the minds" as a required element of a contract. Although, the modern bar for this is extremely low, and courts will judge this based on manifestations of assent.
That being said, Vizio has a high paid legal department and is certainly not ignorant of the fact they ship third-party licensed software. They are simply ignoring it.
Courts would say "look you're professional organization well aware of software licensing landscape and you're using it, so you have agreed"
When it suits a large company's interest, they are always providing a license to use the software inherent in their product rather than the customer purchasing and owning it. If they were allowed to turn around and claim otherwise only when it suited them the situation would be completely arbitrary.
So which is it, and under what circumstances, I would ask you.
