3 ms·

Do you have any case history supporting this interpretation of copyright law? While it is true that copyright protects the right to create derivative works, th

Do you have any case history supporting this interpretation of copyright law? While it is true that copyright protects the right to create derivative works, that is, in practice, usually applied to creating such derivative works and distributing them. Otherwise, scribbling with a pen on a book you bought would be a copyright violation. Similarly, while technically running a program requires copying it into memory (and thus requires a license), no court in this day and age is likely to rule that running software which was acquired legally, but which does not come with a license to run it, is a copyright violation.

belorn 6y ago
Scribbling with a pen on a book you bought would be a copyright violation if it would qualify under the definition of recasting, transforming or adapting the book. It must be substantial and original. A full translation, scribbled on the side, would be a pretty obvious violation regardless if you made further copies. Similar if you bought the movie rights to distribute you still need additional permissions to add translations or to cut it into new versions. There has also been cases where a broadcasting station got sued because they added commercial breaks without having copyright permission to create new adaptations (the author had a very public opinion against commercial breaks). The memory issue has been well discussed and handled in the past. The law has an explicit exception made with this in mind where legal owners of the software has a right to both copy and adapt software if it is an essential step towards utilization of the program. licensees however does not have this right and are restricted to the terms under the license. Naturally this is designed more towards the world of proprietary software where such distinction is more clear.
- marcan_42 6y ago
  In the broadcasting case, obviously broadcasting/distribution was involved, which is not the case here. Do you have any examples where someone making a private modification to a copyrighted work without distribution was legally liable for it after it was discovered? The AGPL attempts to control any changes made to the code, not just, say, a substantial refactoring or reworking. So in principle a one-line patch is sufficient to trigger AGPL clause 13.

belorn 6y ago

Scribbling with a pen on a book you bought would be a copyright violation if it would qualify under the definition of recasting, transforming or adapting the book. It must be substantial and original. A full translation, scribbled on the side, would be a pretty obvious violation regardless if you made further copies. Similar if you bought the movie rights to distribute you still need additional permissions to add translations or to cut it into new versions. There has also been cases where a broadcasting station got sued because they added commercial breaks without having copyright permission to create new adaptations (the author had a very public opinion against commercial breaks). The memory issue has been well discussed and handled in the past. The law has an explicit exception made with this in mind where legal owners of the software has a right to both copy and adapt software if it is an essential step towards utilization of the program. licensees however does not have this right and are restricted to the terms under the license. Naturally this is designed more towards the world of proprietary software where such distinction is more clear.

marcan_42 6y ago
In the broadcasting case, obviously broadcasting/distribution was involved, which is not the case here. Do you have any examples where someone making a private modification to a copyrighted work without distribution was legally liable for it after it was discovered? The AGPL attempts to control any changes made to the code, not just, say, a substantial refactoring or reworking. So in principle a one-line patch is sufficient to trigger AGPL clause 13.