Burning music CDs
in [UK Linux]
|
From: unruh on 2 Feb 2010 17:39 On 2010-02-02, Richard Kettlewell <rjk(a)greenend.org.uk> wrote: > unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes: >> On 2010-02-01, Daniel James <daniel(a)me.invalid> wrote: > >>> I said that a licence grants the licensee certain rights to "use" the >>> licensed thing -- and so it does. In the case of the GPL the right of use >>> that is granted is the right to copy, another license might grant a right >>> to execute. Don't be distracted from the wood by the trees. >> >> Nope. copyright law controls copying not using. Since the ONLY place >> that the license gets any legal weight it has is from the copyright >> act, and since the copyright act only discusses copyring, not >> executing, the license's legal power only extends to copying. > > Using software involves making a copy of it (for instance, copying from > disk to RAM). These copies indeed restricted by copyright law (CDPA1988 > 17(6)). So copyright law does control using software. I think that is a still a point of legal contention. Reading a book involves making a copy ( the image on the page on the retina of the eye) but noone would argue that that means that copyright law can control what people read. An author cannot sue someone who walks onto his office and reads the manuscript on his table under copyright law. The "copying" into memory for purpose of running a program is similar, and the courts have really no idea what to do about it. You may well get lower court rulings all over the map on the issue, depending on the mood of the judge, the facts of the case, the sympathy engenered by the two sides, etc. (Unfortunately judges do not have the option of saying "I simply do not know what should happen in this case". their job is to make a decision, even if they have no basis on which to make one). Copyright law is very very clear that its purpose is to control copying, not anything else.
From: unruh on 2 Feb 2010 18:05 On 2010-02-02, Daniel James <daniel(a)me.invalid> wrote: > In article <slrnhmeqpi.m61.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, Unruh wrote: >> ... contracts require explicit agreement by both parties. > > As far as English law is concerned that is just not true, and there is > ample case law to demonstrate the fact. Sorry, I did overstate, depending on what one means by explicit. It does require agreement. While a contract can bind the person offering it cannot bind the person accepting without that acceptance. > > I can't speak for whatever passes for law wherever you happen to be ... > > Cheers, > Daniel. > >
From: Ian on 2 Feb 2010 18:46 On 2 Feb, 22:39, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > (Unfortunately judges do not have the option of saying "I > simply do not know what should happen in this case". their job is to > make a decision, even if they have no basis on which to make one). What they generally do in such cases, it seems, is give a judgment and encourage the losing party to appeal. Ian
From: Richard Kettlewell on 3 Feb 2010 05:14 unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes: > On 2010-02-02, Richard Kettlewell <rjk(a)greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes: >>> Nope. copyright law controls copying not using. Since the ONLY place >>> that the license gets any legal weight it has is from the copyright >>> act, and since the copyright act only discusses copyring, not >>> executing, the license's legal power only extends to copying. >> >> Using software involves making a copy of it (for instance, copying from >> disk to RAM). These copies indeed restricted by copyright law (CDPA1988 >> 17(6)). So copyright law does control using software. > > I think that is a still a point of legal contention. Reading a book > involves making a copy ( the image on the page on the retina of the eye) > but noone would argue that that means that copyright law can control > what people read. An author cannot sue someone who walks onto his office > and reads the manuscript on his table under copyright law. The law does not seem unambiguous to me: 17. [...] (2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means. [...] (6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work. (2) clearly covers loading a program (RAM is an example of "any medium" and it is electronic means), as does (6), which even explicitly mentions "use". (Computer programs are "literary works"; s3.) > The "copying" into memory for purpose of running a program is similar, > and the courts have really no idea what to do about it. You may well get > lower court rulings all over the map on the issue, depending on the mood > of the judge, the facts of the case, the sympathy engenered by the two > sides, etc. (Unfortunately judges do not have the option of saying "I > simply do not know what should happen in this case". their job is to > make a decision, even if they have no basis on which to make one). Which cases did you have in mind? > Copyright law is very very clear that its purpose is to control copying, > not anything else. I don't see how you can read 17(6) as not restricting copies necessary for use. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
From: Frank Peelo on 3 Feb 2010 08:57
On 02/02/2010 22:39, unruh wrote: > On 2010-02-02, Richard Kettlewell <rjk(a)greenend.org.uk> wrote: > >>unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes: >> >>>On 2010-02-01, Daniel James <daniel(a)me.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>I said that a licence grants the licensee certain rights to "use" the >>>>licensed thing -- and so it does. In the case of the GPL the right of use >>>>that is granted is the right to copy, another license might grant a right >>>>to execute. Don't be distracted from the wood by the trees. >>> >>>Nope. copyright law controls copying not using. Since the ONLY place >>>that the license gets any legal weight it has is from the copyright >>>act, and since the copyright act only discusses copyring, not >>>executing, the license's legal power only extends to copying. >> >>Using software involves making a copy of it (for instance, copying from >>disk to RAM). These copies indeed restricted by copyright law (CDPA1988 >>17(6)). So copyright law does control using software. > > > I think that is a still a point of legal contention. Reading a book > involves making a copy ( the image on the page on the retina of the eye) > but noone would argue that that means that copyright law can control > what people read. No-one? No courts, maybe. There used to be a singer whose CDs came with a warning that loaning the CD to a 3rd party would be copyright infringement. So copying the music from CD form into another medium -- the air between the CD player and your friend's ears -- was restricted to the original licensee of the CD. Which seems to me even more tenuous than your retina example. I hope this encouraged everyone to lend those CDs to anyone who could be bothered to listen to them. FP |