4 ms·
Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it g
by EMIRELADERO 3y ago
Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it goes.
The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.
- gumby 3y agoI think a lot of that has since gone away. I remember the battles around '2000 when the record industry tried to get paid for each instance when parts of the music files were buffered (because they were "copies"). They weren't laughed out of court. These days I think they would.
- ghaff 3y agoIANAL, but I've written a bit about copyright and had it reviewed by a very good IP lawyer. There was at one point some controversy about this point--especially in the context of computer software licensing. But, as I understand it, current case law allows copying where it's necessary to functionally make use of a copyrighted piece of work.
- wtallis 3y ago> But, as I understand it, current case law allows copying where it's necessary to functionally make use of a copyrighted piece of work. Not just case law; it's explicit in statute too: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 > (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.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cma 3y agoHow about skip protection in portable CD players? It loads bit ahead of time into a little buffer of RAM.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- terminous 3y ago> Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM You can't just drop an extraordinary claim like that without a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the case you're describing.
- EMIRELADERO 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp....
- vGPU 3y agoHence, congress passed a law: (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.
- uni_rule 3y agoImagine how bad a judicial take has to be for Congress to actually get up off their hands and legislate about in the current year.
- BaseballPhysics 3y agoNo. That's not how the law and the legal system work. The law was written prior to the existence of digital computers. That law, as written, made copying a program into computer memory to execute it illegal. The law was dumb. But judges enforce the law. That's their job. They have discretion when laws conflict with each other (including with the Constitution) or provide space for ambiguity or flexibility, but otherwise the law is the law. So Congress did their job (a novel concept these days, I know) and updated the law to reflect the realities in modern technology. You don't want judges legislating from the bench. If laws need to be updated, lawmakers should update them. That's how the system works.
- teddyh 3y agoSo executing software actually isn’t an infringement of copyright, as an exception exists in the law? An explicit exception is an actual exception (unlike “fair use” which remains technically illegal until brought to a trial). AFAIK, IANAL.
- gcanyon 3y agoIf we're going to be pedantic about it, just playing a piece of music, from whatever medium it is stored in, is making a (n analog and transient) copy of it.