[License-discuss] Private modification
russellmcormond at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 03:11:57 UTC 2019
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:28 PM Alexander Terekhov <herr.alter at gmail.com>
> It would be fun to watch Larry and Van enforcing in tandem their
> provisions meant to undo the statutory limitations (17 USC 117) using
> Jacobsen v. Katzer silliness with "failed conditions" somehow causing scope
> violations resulting in copyright infringement!!! Pam will surely
> intervene, claiming that copies of FLOSS software are not owned by the
> creators of copies/downloaders/etc. and hence statutory limitations
> (including 17 USC 109) do not apply!!! My, what a comedy. <chuckles>
I'm Canadian, and I've spent decades with other people who are lobbying the
federal government to have private copies (RAM, HDD/SDD not shared with
others, etc) clearly not considered fixations on tangible media, and thus
clearly not "copies" regulated by the Canadian Copyright Act.
This is in the context of the same people who are in strong support of the
outcome of "Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc." which did
articulate the limits of copyright relating to fixations on tangible media.
This isn't strictly a US question and the specific contours of current US
law, but how what the OSI does impacts the legislative process globally.
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss