Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:38:58PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Copyrights restrict the right to make copies, period. Not just the right >> to >> distribute them. Legally, they always have, at least in the US. (They >> just aren't enforced terribly often against people who don't distribute, >> because it's not usually worth the money; they are enforced sometimes.) > > The issue, here is "what's a copy"? > > In the case of a computer program, if you're not creating physically > distinct copies (for example, putting copies onto different cdroms), > is that a copy, in the legal sense? Well, making a copy in RAM is making a copy, legally; this is apparently the caselaw in the US. I'm sorry that I don't have the reference.
There is a specific legislated exemption in copyright law for the copies made in the course of normal use (or some such), I believe, though I don't have it on hand. Perhaps I could convince someone else to dig up the references? :-D > Fundamentally, the technical terminology of copyright law is not the > same as the technical terminology of computer programmers. > > Most computer operations are "copying" in some for or another. But, > as a general rule, you don't need copyright permission for the computer > to perform those operations - Except that's apparently not the law in the US. Apparently you *do*, except that a specific and narrow exemption is granted. > if you have a legal copy of some software > this "internal copying" is treated in the fashion of "performance" > of a copyrighted work. > > Maybe you have some precedent or court ruling to the contrary? Basically, yes, but I don't have the reference to hand right now. Sorry I'm so disorganized. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
