IANAL and all that jazz...
<SNIP>
>>
>>Copyright law does state that the copyright holder does not perforce
>>reserve
>>the right to "use" the work, however that may apply to the work. They may
>>not forbid people to read a book, but they may forbid them to read it in
>>public. They may not forbid people to *privately* perform a play, or
>>rehearse it, but they may forbid them from performing in public. Get the
>>idea.
>>
>
>AFAIK in almost all countries making copies has no "public" limitation -
>whether the copy is "private" or "public" is irrelevant.
I wasn't talking about the copy, merely the use. And for the book I should've said
read aloud in public.
The point is that every western nation I know of allows for such copying as required
for use to be permissable, as the owner of the *copyright* does not reserve the right
to use the work, merely to copy it etc etc. So, they've made a copy, and someone else
now owns it. The copyright owner cannot stop them using it.
This is where a more knotty problem is hit - can someone own a CD-ROM, for example, or
a hard drive, which has a copy of the software on it, and yet not own the copy of the
software. Most (all?) commercial software companies allege this in their shrink-wrap
EULAs, and I am not sure how case law stands in different jursisdictions. If I were
arguing the point, I would say "How can I own the paper this book is printed on
without owning the book, and therefore being allowed to read it?" - or "How can I own
this record, but not the copy of the recording, and thus not be allowed to play it?".
You see the point.
Of course, if the copy is obtained illegally (software piracy, for example) then there
are no rights to use it anyway, regardless of shrink-wrap or absence thereof.
Sam
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
