Indeed, purchasing entirely pirated software is not actionable against the end user under the Copyright Act anymore than purchasing any other infringing copy is. To be clear, it IS actionable against the person who did the piracy, as well as the distribution, and damages for the profits would be appropriate.
> 117 was meant to codify what everyone assumed was an implied license in
> computer programs: that you could make a copy to run or store the program you
> bought without violating the copyright. Any other result would be kind of
> stupid when you think about it. 117 was never intended to protect anyone who
> is in possession of an infringing copy, and I doubt that the courts would
> apply it that way.
117 was not intented to protect someone in possession of an infinging copy only because there is nothing to protect from. What 17 USC 106 right does being in possession of an infringing copy violate? Has any court ever found the possessor of an infringing copy to be engaged in a copyright violation, absent other violations? Keep in mind that we are NOT talking about the situation where any sort of post-sale contract exists.
Dr. Dre was recently found to have infringed Fatback's 1980 song "Backstrokin" on Dre's "Let's Get High" album. Are you suggesting that anyone who purchased that album is liable? I've never heard of such a finding by a court.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:49 GMT