4 ms·
Here's the exclusive rights copyright gives you under American law: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap
by msla 6y ago
Here's the exclusive rights copyright gives you under American law:
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
> (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
> (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
> (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
> (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
> (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Note that running the program is not listed in those exclusive rights. The copyright owner doesn't have the exclusive right to run the program, so the copyright owner cannot take it away from you, any more than I can take away your right to wear yellow socks.
- aidenn0 6y agoWhen you run a program, you are directing the computer to copy the program into working memory.
- saagarjha 6y agoTime to create a computer that runs entirely from disk without copying anything into RAM.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y agoIt's called XIP, and it's as weird as you'd expect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execute_in_place https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execute_in_place
- kd5bjo 6y agoThat’s how the old cartridge-based game consoles worked: the cartridge contacts are the processor’s memory bus, and it executed directly off of the ROM chip inside the cartridge.
- tzs 6y agoThat's not a copyright infringement. See 17 USC (a)(1): "(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: " (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or [...]" It is interesting to compare that to 17 USC 109, the codification of the "first sale" doctrine: "(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord [...]" Note that 109 specifically limits itself to copies that were "lawfully made". If I receive a CD-ROM containing a pirated copy of a program and I give that CD-ROM away (the actual CD-ROM I received, not a copy of it) I am potentially guilty of copyright infringement. I've infringed the copyright owner's exclusive distribution right, and the first sale doctrine does not save me because that particular copy was not lawfully made. If I receive a CD-ROM containing a pirated copy of a program and I run that program from the CD-ROM (or, arguably, copy it to my hard disk for the sole purpose of running it from the hard disk), it would appear that I have not infringed any of the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Section 117 does not contain a restriction to lawfully made copies, and so seems to save me. I never noticed that difference before. Anyone happen to know why 109 is limited to lawfully made copies and 117 is not?
- aidenn0 6y agoSoftware companies at least would like you to believe that you do not own a copy of a program, but rather a license to use a copy of the program. They are almost certainly not on firm ground when it comes to physical copies, but download-only software is much less clear cut.
- hakfoo 6y agoAs I understand it there was some case law that tried to build the premise that you had to copy the software incidentally as part of running it. Most of the cloth of software-licensing is woven from that thread.
- thayne 6y agoThat's like saying that you make a copy of a book when you read it, because the words are in your memory. Or at least that memorizing passages of text is copyright infringement.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zerocrates 6y agoA "copy" for copyright law must be "fixed" in a tangible medium: the brain doesn't count. The "copies to RAM count as copies" cases have been around for a while and are on pretty solid footing, but there's some uncertainty in the area.
- syshum 6y agoWell then could you not consider the disk copy the "archive" and the running copy the "actual" work thus creating the single copy to run in memory would fall perfectly under Fair Use? As you are allowed to make a Archive copy of the software in case it is damaged or lost, and RAM is volatile memory thus prone to loss....
- tzs 6y agoThere is no need to jump through hoops like that to try to justify making copies to execute. The same section of US copyright law that says making archival copies is not an infringement also says that making copies to run is not an infringement [1]. See section (a)(1) at that link. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
- phkahler 6y agoAre you sure about #3 ?? That seems to go against library lending, Netflix mailing, and the old video rental - blockbuster.
- msla 6y agoI'm not sure about anything. I'm quoting the code directly. Ask the lawmakers if they're sure.