3 ms·
As 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 cl
by hakfoo 6y ago
As 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