On Thu, 01 May 1997, Bruce Hayden <bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com> wrote:
>
> David Post <postd[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > But isn't 'printing a copy' also 'expressly impermissible' under
> > the copyright law?
>
> Well, it is the making of a copy. So, from that point of view, yes.
> However, this is a place that implied license and the like would
> come into the analysis.
I thought about the implied license angle. It's interesting how computers have changed the meaning of copy. For example, someone sends me a computer image file, and I display it. I have a copy of the image file. If I print the display, I now have two copies. Does the sending of the file or the sending of the e-mail impliedly license me to print it? Some might say that it is more convenient to have the paper copy rather than the computer copy, that if I had a paper copy sent to me, I would have more flexibility in my rights. For example, with a paper copy I could take it with me to someone else's house and show it to them. The computer copy also gives me certain capabilities that the paper copy does not, like searching the e-mail, or displaying the image from my computer onto a large screen, but I can't carry around the copy unless I take the hard drive out of the computer and take it with me to my friend's.
Ultimately, I think that if one is going to print a copy of a sent computer file, one should then destroy the computer file. I don't know of anything in the Copyright Act that gives me the right to substitute a lawful copy with another copy, but it doesn't seem unreasonable from a common sense point of view.
If you think about it the other way, would the sending of a paper image or a paper mail give you the right to scan that image or mail into your computer? I don't think so, even under implied license.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:25 GMT