RE: Re: Running Software, Copyright, and SCO

From: Chris Mohr <chrismohr[_at_]sprintmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:10:35 -0400

No. I believe what my learned friend was suggesting was the minute that one makes a _copy_ of the software, they are liable. The "copy" occurs once the program is loaded into RAM. So if your point is about possession, you're right. But the instant the software is used, 117 does not apply because the user doesn't own it.

The music hypo works a little differently.

-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Taylor Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 11:35 AM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Running Software, Copyright, and SCO

• Kevin Grierson <kgrierson[_at_]wilsav.com> wrote:
  >
  > I've kept my nose out of this for a while, but this makes no sense. If
  > you're not authorized to have the copy of software in your possession in
  the
  > first place, 117 is not applicable, since you're not a lawful "owner".
  > Otherwise, purchasing entirely pirated software would not be actionable
  > against the end user.
  

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.

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

#############################################################

This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to   the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>

Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>. Received on Fri Aug 08 2003 - 22:10:35 GMT