On 5/18/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Logically, the process used here is more complex than that used by > > > gunzip, but effect is similar. > > > > If nothing else, 17 USC 117 and dynamic linking absolutely protect you > > from this theory of infringement in the US. Many jurisdictions are > > said to have equivalents. IANAL, etc. > > This "absolute protection" did not seem to protect Napster, nor did > the home recording act.
Here's the relevant text from 17 USC 117: (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. This obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts of Napster, and everything to do with the "adaptation" that happens during run-time resolution of dynamic linking references. In any case, it is to be supposed that you are referring to the district court opinion affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in A&M Records et al. v. Napster 2001 ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016401.html ). While I am not interested in redacting this opinion at the moment, I recommend it to all readers as an example of exactly how the theory of vicarious or contributory liability is applied with respect to copyright infringement. IANAL, etc. Cheers, - Michael
