> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 17 USC 101 and Articles 4 and 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty probably > > suffice. They definitely classify a network-provided application as > > public performance -- unless you believe that executing a program does > > not count as a "performance" of it, which to me sounds far out-there.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 11:20:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: [quotes 17 USC 101 definitions of "performance"...] > In other words, it's very clear that my running postfix to send you > this message is not a public performance of postfix. It's very clear to me that "performance" and "public performance" are two different things -- cases of "public performance" being a subset of cases of "performance". It's also clear to me, from reading the bit of 17 USC 101 you quoted, that running postfix constitutes a performance, even if it's not a public performance. -- Raul