"kurttrail" wrote in
:
David wrote:
snip
For example, the copyright in a
computer program is separate from the physical copy of the program.
[ In other words, You own the media. Not the Software. Gee, Maybe we
should have told you that. Wait!!! We did!! Numerous times ]
''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a
work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from
which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise
communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a
phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html
''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a
work is fixed by any method now known or later developed
In other words. The copy is the Music or Data on the materiel media
fixed by any method now known or ***later developed***
This would include Magnetic media such as Taps, Floppy Disk, and
Hard Disk, and Optical Media such as Compact Disk.
"TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 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 . . . .
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 . . . ."
It is essential to copy the software fromt he CD to the computer that
it is being install upon.. But, It is NOT essential to install the
software onmore then one computer. You can copy the software to "A
computer" "A computer" being singular. Just one. no more then one. Not
two or three. But, one.
-
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
This is why I always say I own my *copy* of software. LOL!
You are not the owner of Copy. But of a copy. The capitalization is
distinctive. You can Wallpaper you home with copies of the CD if you wish
snip
Copyright protects "original works of authorship"
[ this would be Microsoft in our discussions ]
No, it would be Windows XP. MS isn't an original work of authorship,
they are the Copyright Owner or Holder.
OK. I misspoke myslef here. I'll grant you that.
against unauthorized copying.
[ Umm, Did Microsoft authorize you to install a copy on more then one
machine? I don't think so. ]
No, Congress did by placing limitations on the rights of copyright
owners!
Only if you meet the criteria set forth in Sec. 117. Whcih you haven't
See all the limitations Copyright Law puts on copyright owners
*rights*! LOL!
You haven't meet the criteria required to enforce these limitations
snip
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by
the Act to the owner of copyright.
[ It's illegal??? Wow, That must mean there is a LAW. ]
It's illegal to violate a copyright owners right, unless there is a
limitation placed on their rights.
"These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107
through 119 of the Copyright Act establish limitations on these
rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions
from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of
"fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the
Act."
Wow! That must mean there are LIMITATIONS!
These rights, however, are not
unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 119 of the Copyright Act
establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these
limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One
major
limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory
basis
in section 107 of the Act.
Missed this, huh?! Do you think that Section 117 is somewhere between
Sections 107 and 119?! ROFL! You do remember Section 117, don't
you?! LOL!
No. Didn't miss it. You haven't shown "Fair Use". you merrely think you
have.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on
exclusive rights: Computer programs
(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
Again. I ask you to show how installing the software on MORE THEN ONE
COMPUTER is essential to installing the software.
(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 computerprogram should cease to be rightful.
For Archival Purpose ONLY. An archive being a backup in case the
original is damaged.
snip
In other instances, the limitation takes
the form of a "compulsory license"
[ This must mean that if you don't agree with the license, You can't
use the software. Sounds a lot like the MS EULA. You know, The End
User LICENSE Agreement. ]
Totally & Absolutely Wrong!
"Sec. 115. - Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works:
Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords - In the
case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights provided by
*clauses* *(1)* *and* *(3)* *of* *section* *106*, to make and to
distribute phonorecords of such works, are subject to compulsory
licensing under the conditions specified by this section." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html
Since you love looking up definitions so much. Look up "Musical works"
"*Sec. 106*. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works - Subject to
sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has
the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
*(1)* to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords . .
. . *(3)* to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work
to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending . . . ." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
under which certain limited uses of
copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties
and compliance with statutory conditions. [ Wow! Didn't we pay for
windows? ]
I didn't know that Windows is a phonorecord! Does it play at 33, 45,
or 78?!
snip
Fair Use Defense
"Infringement' consists of violating the author's exclusive
rights. 17 U.S.C. section 501. Although the author has the
exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and display a
copyrighted work under section 106, these rights are limited by
the defense [12] of "fair use""
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106A, the *fair
use of a copyrighted work,* including such use by
reproduction in copies . . . or by any other means specified
in that section, *for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, *is not an
infringement* of copyright.
[ How is installing a second copy of Windows on the wife's or
juniors
computer full any of these criteria? ]
The wife is a co-owner of the copy of software. And the children are
legal dependents! No judge in his right mind would rule that one
could not share with one's wife, and dependent children! What country
do you live in?!
I'll grant you this. I agree. We should be permitte to install on any
machine we own. Now, You just need to get a Judge to agree with you and
make it legal.
17 U.S.C. section 107 (emphasis added). The defense "permits and
requires courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright
statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity
which that law is designed to foster." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1170 (1994) (citation omitted).
Congress has set out four nonexclusive factors to be considered
in determining the availability of the fair use defense:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
[ Well, Doubt being too cheap to buy a second licenses qualifies. ]
"whether such a use is of a commercial nature" NO!
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
{ Copy the WHOLE thing??? I doubt it. ]
When the use is private & non-commercial and within the bounds of
one's home, your doubt isn't likely to be the determining factor for a
judge!
Neither are *your* interpretations of Copyright law.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.
[ Microsoft claims it cost them revenue and is driving up market
prices. Microsoft doesn't need to prove this until someone challenges
them in court. ]
Wrong Again! "Fair Use" is a defense, only if you are being sued by
the copyright owner. You don't sue the copyright owner in order to
establish your use as a fair use. So MS doesn't have to demonstrate
#4 until MS challenges someone else in court, and they use Section 107
as a defense!
In other words. "It ain't illegal until you get cought"?? It's a defense
that will probably fail.
17 U.S.C. section 107. The fair use doctrine calls for a
case-by-case analysis. Campbell, 114 S.Ct. at 1170. All of the
factors "are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in
light of the purposes of copyright." Id. at 1170-71.
Up to a judge to decide, not the copyright owner!
Nor you or me.
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "The limited scope of the
copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright
duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing
claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and
rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of
promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the
other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a
fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim
is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the
general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and the
primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, 'lie
in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors.' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html
Thanks for helping me prove my point! Hope you learn something!
This is a specific case involving Copyrighted works being brodcast
over a radio and whether or not playing that radio in public is
considered a performance.
It has nothingk to do with making copies of software or Softeare
license agreements.
And, Yes. I did learn something. That you have absolutely no idea how
our legal system works.
David