> Edward Barrow <edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > My questions:
> > > [a and b deleted]
> > > (c) does the implied licence (or equivalent doctrine) extend to:
> > > i) viewing the document source code?
> > > ii) printing the document?
> > >
> > > [My answer to (c) i) and ii) in the UK would be 'probably not' but I'd
> > > be interested in others' opinions]
>
> Greg MacGowan <greg.macgowan[_at_]law.uc.edu> replied:
> >
> > With respect to (c) ii), I don't see a problem with printing the document
> > provided that the electronic copy is deleted.
Tim Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> It is clear that a licence is given to reproduce the document in
> order to view a Web document using a browser. I would argue that it
> is also clear that any incidental reproductions necessary to view a
> Web document are also authorised (including reproductions in caches
> and proxy servers although there are members of this list who seem to
> disagree). It is less clear (but I think pretty safe) that a licence
> is also given to create a print-out for personal use (as opposed to
> further publication).
Yes, this was my thinking as well (although you have stated the case far better than I ever could!). To this I would add that by deleting the electronic file, there is still only one copy of the work, and that the printed copy is the first that is not of a transitory nature (this assumes that copies in RAM are not fixed. Hardly a safe assumption on my part). I will also grant you that I am taking a VERY broad view, perhaps unhealthily so, of implied license on the Internet.
I was more concerned with getting to (c) i) of Ed's question, and perhaps should have ignored (c) ii) completely. Se la vie.
phone: (513) 556-2334
fax: (513) 556-6265
Email: Greg.MacGowan[_at_]Law.UC.edu
http://www.law.uc.edu/CETL/gsm
Received on Thu May 08 1997 - 00:11:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:25 GMT