n.b. before beginning I should state that I am not an intellectual
property attorney and if I have made any mistakes on Canadian law,
please feel free to correct me. I really know a great deal more about
US law than the law of my home (but that's another story).
Just to follow up on Diane's excellent explanation, it should be noted
that 'fair use' doctrine is not universally applied throughout the
world. For example, in Canada the fair dealing doctrine applies.
Actually it goes beyond doctrine as fair dealing is enshrined in the
copyright act in Canada. I am sure that practitioners from other
parts of the world can weight in with their local versions of the same
concept and highlight how their local law varies from US fair use.
What is important to understand is that fair use (under US law)
applies certain specific tests for the fair use exception. These
tests have been at least partially defined in the courts. In Canada,
different tests apply (although there are similarities). Different
statutes apply. For example, there is a statutory exemption for the
not-for-profit performance of a copyright musical work at certain
agricultural fairs. There may be a similar statutory exemption in the
US, but it sure isn't part of the vanilla fair use exemption
doctrine. It also probably is completely off-topic for the subject of
RAM caching so I'd better get back on track.
The net result of all of this is that it is entirely possible that
something (like RAM cache as in MAI vs Peak Computing or browser
caching or site caching or even linking to a site) could turn out to
be a valid fair use exception in the US yet unacceptable according to
the laws of a different country. Thus, the outcome would depend on
where the two parties are located.
Are we having fun yet?
Diane Cabell wrote:
>
> 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)
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
