3 ms·

> Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or no

> Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or not. If you think about it in that way, copyright infringement is out of the picture completely because of the statutory exception. 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.

DannyBee 2y ago
Err, no. That statutory exemption was created to resolve one court case and one worry: 1. A holding that you can commit infringement simply by loading a program into memory even for maintenance purposes. This was MAI v. Peak, one of the earliest real court cases on software copyright infringement. It was unfortunately followed by lots of courts. 2. A worry that creating tape backups/etc of computers, and copies of software cd's (since they don't last forever) was copyright infringement independent of anything else. See the report for more details: https://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-repor... Neither would eliminate infringement in this case.
- duskwuff 2y ago
  WRT #2, note that the relevant section of 17 USC §117 was written in 1980 - at the time, most software was distributed on media like floppy discs or tape which could easily be accidentally overwritten or damaged by faulty equipment. Creating personal backups of purchased software was already standard practice for many users; I think it's this sort of usage that the law was primarily meant to protect. Later applications like allowing users to backup computer hard drives with copyrighted software installed on them were a happy accident.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    Oh, yes, you are right. I misread the dates. I knew it was not because of a case, that the worry was around archival copies of software, and that (to this day) nobody had actually ever been sued over making a backup (as far as anyone knows). I should have dug a little deeper back into the history.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  It would in the sense that mere use wouldn't count as infringement. Distribution is a different thing here and I agree there are more complex shenanigans there.

DannyBee 2y ago

Err, no. That statutory exemption was created to resolve one court case and one worry: 1. A holding that you can commit infringement simply by loading a program into memory even for maintenance purposes. This was MAI v. Peak, one of the earliest real court cases on software copyright infringement. It was unfortunately followed by lots of courts. 2. A worry that creating tape backups/etc of computers, and copies of software cd's (since they don't last forever) was copyright infringement independent of anything else. See the report for more details: https://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-repor... Neither would eliminate infringement in this case.

duskwuff 2y ago
WRT #2, note that the relevant section of 17 USC §117 was written in 1980 - at the time, most software was distributed on media like floppy discs or tape which could easily be accidentally overwritten or damaged by faulty equipment. Creating personal backups of purchased software was already standard practice for many users; I think it's this sort of usage that the law was primarily meant to protect. Later applications like allowing users to backup computer hard drives with copyrighted software installed on them were a happy accident.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  Oh, yes, you are right. I misread the dates. I knew it was not because of a case, that the worry was around archival copies of software, and that (to this day) nobody had actually ever been sued over making a backup (as far as anyone knows). I should have dug a little deeper back into the history.
EMIRELADERO 2y ago
It would in the sense that mere use wouldn't count as infringement. Distribution is a different thing here and I agree there are more complex shenanigans there.