4 ms·

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

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.

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.