2 ms·

> 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

by teddyh 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.

by teddyh 4y ago

philistine 4y 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 4y 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.