5 ms·
That's actually a fairly interesting case. I haven't read into it too much but it seems that they agree that it isn't necessarily a copyright violation based on
by jacoblambda 6y ago
That's actually a fairly interesting case. I haven't read into it too much but it seems that they agree that it isn't necessarily a copyright violation based on who does it. It looks like what they got Peak on was instead the fact that they had unlicensed copies of MAI software at their HQ and were loaning MAI equipment in such a way that violated the license agreements.
P.S. Please correct me if I got any of this wrong.
- zerocrates 6y agoThere are some details in the case that are as you say, about Peak having "unclean hands" in effect, but they're fairly beside the point for the case's broader significance. What it really stands/stood for is the notion that a "copy" sufficient for the operation of copyright law occurs when a program is loaded from disk to RAM, and therefore it's possible to infringe copyright merely by using software that you aren't personally licensed for. MAI basically used this theory to make third-party maintenance of their systems illegal, so Congress responded by amending the Copyright Act, but in an extremely narrow way: there's a carve out specifically for maintenance and repair.