On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > Adam McKenna writes: > > > Since I've explained twice now that the use of "and" or "or" in that > > sentence > > does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately > > misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me. Also, I said > > that > > your interpretation is insane, not that you were personally insane. > > Since MJ and I have explained at least twice now that the use of "or" > versus "and" in that sentence does matter, and why, I'm going to > assume you are deliberately ignoring statutory law and license > construction in order to try to incense us.
As a legal excercise, maybe. Practically, it does not. Consider the following two statements: If you don't have permission to make personal copies from the law (say, you live in a jurisdiction that does not have the concept of fair use), then you have to obey the license if you want to make personal copies. If you don't have permission to distribute copies from the law, then you have to obey the license if you want to distribute copies. If the license said "make and distribute", then that would eliminate statement #1. You could make personal copies without obeying the license. However, you still comply with the license if you make a personal copy that is readable only by yourself (mode 0700). You would not be in violation of the DRM clause because everyone who has possession of the copy (yourself) is still able to read the copy and make further copies. > MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of "technological measure" and you > have not explained why you think that should be ignored. I did, in the part of the e-mail you snipped. --Adam Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
