On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 09:22:35AM +0000, Andy Wardley wrote: > Lusercop wrote: > > What is different about this from the current situation? This is exactly > > how copyright holders expect to be able to enforce their licences. The > > courts established at some point in the 80s that the copy in RAM was an > > infringing copy, and therefore needed an explicit licence. IANAL, so I > > don't have any of the details. > Lawrence Lessig IAL and points out that copyright is *supposed* to > grant individuals the right to copy a work while preventing them from > re-publishing the work. So it should be a non-issue about taking a
Yes, but a) Lawrence Lessig (Larry Lessig - we love Larrys) is a lawyer in America rather than in the UK, and b) you're forgetting about the UK test cases that have already happened. I've no doubt that it's supposed to do what you say, but unfortunately, I am of the understanding that the UK test cases say different. There is, I believe, an explicit section in the CDPA 1988 about computer software. > copy of a work on paper, in RAM, on MP3, whatever. The right to copy > is *supposed* to be granted to you when you buy a copy of the work. Erm!? It's all very well saying what you think should be the case. I'd perfectly agree, but my comment which you quoted above was about what was already the case, and so your followup is a little misleading, as I was trying to say that what nick was worried about is already the case, and has been for over 14 years, and you were saying what the original intention of copyright was. Stallman, incidentally, has some very interesting arguments about copyright, and what it was supposed to be. (think age of the printing press). -- Lusercop.net - LARTing Lusers everywhere since 2002
