On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Liam Proven <lpro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb <ge...@deltasoft.com> wrote: >>> If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then >>> TECHNICALLY you'd be violating the copyright. Otherwise, it's nonsense. >> >> >> AIUI -- and IANAL -- this is correct, yes. > > Copying without permission of the copyright owner would be a copyright > violation. Some licenses permit wide copying (open source). And of course > software might be in the public domain (no copyright) -- that's rare but it > does happen.
Copying that's not covered by fair use or other permissible acts without the permission is a copyright violation. Copyright owners may bar that copying in their license, but that doesn't make those acts unlawful. There's nothing in copyright law about original media being your savior. You are permitted to make copies for backup purposes, and to use those copies if the original copy becomes corrupt, for example. But this statement isn't absolute for newer copyrighted material that's copy protected, which has its own set of bizarre rules. The license to copy (and therefore use) is not tied to any particular thing in the law, so there are many cases that determine what the rules are in the absence of an explicit license, as well as what terms in a license may or may not be enforceable. Speaking in absolutes in the IP field is often unwise. Warner