Re: Fixation Vs Transience

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 May 97 07:57:58 PDT

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Bradley James Nicholson <natsteps[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the way out of this conundrum of fixation vs. transcience
> is to consider loading into RAM, browsing, caching, etc. as a
> noninfringing "method of operation" under section 102(b), since a
> computer cannot be operated without some copying taking place.

I don't see how that helps. 102(b) simply means, in this context, that the process of caching or loading into RAM cannot be copyrighted, but it doesn't pertain to the copy produced. Otherwise, it would be like saying that because a photocopier cannot be copyrighted, neither can the copies it produces.

Whether the copy that is made constitutes infringement is a question that I think will depend on the facts, but I don't see how copying an image in its entirety to disk cache could not be considered a copy, nor do I see how copying operating systems software to RAM could not be considered a copy. I suppose that what the MAI cases stand for, in part, is that not only can a computer not be operated without some copying taking place, but that in some instances a computer cannot be operated without some infringing taking place.

---

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
UCLA School of Law '98
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/

---

Received on Thu May 08 1997 - 15:18:50 GMT