3 ms·

You bought a physical box. It's yours forever, or to sell. The box contains a copy of the software. But copyright law prevents you from making a copy of it, in

by sowbug 3y ago

You bought a physical box. It's yours forever, or to sell. The box contains a copy of the software. But copyright law prevents you from making a copy of it, including the copy that your computer would need to make to run the software. The copyright owner generally agrees to enter into a certain contract with whoever buys the box. Typically, the copyright owner specifies what the contract terms are, and it's usually non-negotiable. (The non-negotiability, making it a contract of adhesion, is the strongest argument against so-called "shrinkwrap" or "clickwrap" agreements. But that leaves the box owner with just a box, and no permission to use the software.) You might be under the misunderstanding that contracts need to be signed to be effective. Nope. There are lots of ways to accept a contract offer, most often by "implied acceptance," where the parties just start doing what the contract says. In your case, that's probably by opening the box and sticking the physical media in your computer (or otherwise running the software). Similar to going to an amusement park whose ticket has a bunch of fine print on it, or working as an employee at a company for a while without ever quite getting around to signing the employment agreement they gave you.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
> The box contains a copy of the software. But copyright law prevents you from making a copy of it, including the copy that your computer would need to make to run the software. Not so fast! 17 U.S.C § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (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 (2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
teddyh 3y ago
> But copyright law prevents you from making a copy of it, including the copy that your computer would need to make to run the software. I am not convinced of that. If I hold a book up to a mirror, am I breaking copyright law? If I read a book aloud to a child, am I breaking copyright law? My retinas will contain an actual physical image of the book whenever I look at the book. Are my retinas breaking copyright law? > You might be under the misunderstanding that contracts need to be signed to be effective. Nope. I am not under that misapprehension, but I do believe that a contract must be explicitly agreed to in order to be valid. And in my example, I did not agree to anything when purchasing software in a store; I gave them money, they gave me a box.
- philistine 3y ago
  On your first point, you're wrong on the idea that laws of nature outweigh our written ones. Some things that nature allow us to do have been deemed illegal. It's just what it is. Copyright prevents you from making a copy in the legal sense of a book, or of software. Reading a book to a kid is a private performance, your retinas are memory, and the mirror is just a mirror. On the whole thing about a contract needing to be agreed on, you're right. Some countries have different jurisprudence, but a shrinkwrap license is difficult to enforce. You need to have actively agreed to a EULA. But copyright law still applies, and you're not given the right to copy software through copyright.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    Firstly, your specific argument about a copy being made by running the program; that is explicitly carved out as a copyright exception in many jurisdictions, including – according to user EMIRELADERO in a sibling comment – the US. You seem to imply, but avoid to state directly, that the answers to my questions are yes, no, yes, and yes, respectively. And that would be completely absurd, and anyone arguing the validity of that in a court would be asking to lose. Copyright makes copying illegal, yes (among other things, like making a public performance, making a new derived work based on the copyrighted work). But what is a copy? I would argue that a copy of a program must be something which can be used as a program by some other person. Like a copy of a book has to be usable as a book (independently of the original book) to count as a copy. Otherwise, it’s a derived work based on the original work. So what is a “work”? I would argue that a copy of a program in memory, like a mirror image, or a reflection in a retina, is not a “work”, since it can’t be displayed, used, or even sold. But IANAL.
salawat 3y ago
...and that's bullshit, and should have never passed muster in a court of law ever. Period. Consideration and a meeting of the minds has always been essential to contract law. The age of technology was not just a revolution in silicon, but a revolution in wholesale stripping of consumer riggts by buisnesses through legal boilerplate as supported by the United States judiciary's continued coddling of the interests of the tech sector to the detriment of everyone else.

by sowbug 3y ago

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

> The box contains a copy of the software. But copyright law prevents you from making a copy of it, including the copy that your computer would need to make to run the software. Not so fast! 17 U.S.C § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (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 (2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

teddyh 3y ago

> But copyright law prevents you from making a copy of it, including the copy that your computer would need to make to run the software. I am not convinced of that. If I hold a book up to a mirror, am I breaking copyright law? If I read a book aloud to a child, am I breaking copyright law? My retinas will contain an actual physical image of the book whenever I look at the book. Are my retinas breaking copyright law? > You might be under the misunderstanding that contracts need to be signed to be effective. Nope. I am not under that misapprehension, but I do believe that a contract must be explicitly agreed to in order to be valid. And in my example, I did not agree to anything when purchasing software in a store; I gave them money, they gave me a box.

philistine 3y ago
On your first point, you're wrong on the idea that laws of nature outweigh our written ones. Some things that nature allow us to do have been deemed illegal. It's just what it is. Copyright prevents you from making a copy in the legal sense of a book, or of software. Reading a book to a kid is a private performance, your retinas are memory, and the mirror is just a mirror. On the whole thing about a contract needing to be agreed on, you're right. Some countries have different jurisprudence, but a shrinkwrap license is difficult to enforce. You need to have actively agreed to a EULA. But copyright law still applies, and you're not given the right to copy software through copyright.
- teddyh 3y ago
  Firstly, your specific argument about a copy being made by running the program; that is explicitly carved out as a copyright exception in many jurisdictions, including – according to user EMIRELADERO in a sibling comment – the US. You seem to imply, but avoid to state directly, that the answers to my questions are yes, no, yes, and yes, respectively. And that would be completely absurd, and anyone arguing the validity of that in a court would be asking to lose. Copyright makes copying illegal, yes (among other things, like making a public performance, making a new derived work based on the copyrighted work). But what is a copy? I would argue that a copy of a program must be something which can be used as a program by some other person. Like a copy of a book has to be usable as a book (independently of the original book) to count as a copy. Otherwise, it’s a derived work based on the original work. So what is a “work”? I would argue that a copy of a program in memory, like a mirror image, or a reflection in a retina, is not a “work”, since it can’t be displayed, used, or even sold. But IANAL.

salawat 3y ago

...and that's bullshit, and should have never passed muster in a court of law ever. Period. Consideration and a meeting of the minds has always been essential to contract law. The age of technology was not just a revolution in silicon, but a revolution in wholesale stripping of consumer riggts by buisnesses through legal boilerplate as supported by the United States judiciary's continued coddling of the interests of the tech sector to the detriment of everyone else.