Making an unlicensed copy of a copyrighted work is an infringement. RAM makes a copy.
Strict liability. There are fair use exceptions but the the MAI case involved reverse
engineering for the purpose of repairing bugs (as I recall) and that was found not to
be
fair use. I fervently hope that browser caching, when done solely for the purpose of
viewing a work online, will be found to be fair use.
dc
Mark R. Measday wrote:
> For purposes of comparison, what other technologies have been deemed illegal
>recently?
> Or is it just the use of the technology for specific purposes?
>
> Diane Cabell wrote:
>
> > Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > (....)
> > > > are
> > > > we changing the caching mechanism?
> > >
> > > Take a look at the recent European Parliament ruling on caching as a violation of
> > > copyright.
> >
> > RAM caching has been deemed a copyright violation in the US since MAI Systems Corp.
> > v. Peak
> > Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) Whether browser caching will be
> > considered fair use has not yet been litigated.
> >
> > Diane Cabell
> > http://www.mama-tech.com
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
> > 21 School Street, 3rd Floor
> > Boston, MA
> > 1.617.227.1600 (vox)
> > 1.617.227.1608 (fax)
>
> --
>
> Mark Measday
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
> UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
> French tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92
> Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.363.88.00
>
> L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151
> __________________________________________________________________________
--
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
21 School Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA
1.617.227.1600 (vox)
1.617.227.1608 (fax)
