[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software
- From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:55:14 -0800 (PST)
- In-reply-to: <AB777BF939A8384EA82F7FF8E06F7BA701004C33@carrier.fcci-group.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
--- Dean Sanchez <DSanchez@fcci-group.com> wrote:
> Isn't this the argument that the US courts accepted when the software
> industry made the same claim? They claimed that since a copy of the software
> is stored in RAM, the individual purchasing the product needs to have
> permission to make a copy. That's how they can 'license' a product that is
> actually sold.
That is the argument that the software industry made. Courts ruled that
installation and exectution both involve copies (on a disk and in memory,
respectively). Fortunately, the idea that such copies require a licence is
total crap. Read 17 USC 117 -- the owner has an explicit first sale right to
make such copies for use in a machine. If you own one set of media and want to
install and use on more than one machine, THEN you do need a licence.
The recent Adobe v. Softman case covered a significan portion of this ground
and ruled that Adobe software is "sold" and not merely "licenced".
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!