[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: Australian Court rules: Films aren't software

--- Dean Sanchez <DSanchez@fcci-group.com> wrote:
> Isn't this the argument that the US courts accepted when the software
> industry made the same claim? They claimed that since a copy of the software
> is stored in RAM, the individual purchasing the product needs to have
> permission to make a copy.   That's how they can 'license' a product that is
> actually sold.

That is the argument that the software industry made. Courts ruled that
installation and exectution both involve copies (on a disk and in memory,
respectively). Fortunately, the idea that such copies require a licence is
total crap. Read 17 USC 117 -- the owner has an explicit first sale right to
make such copies for use in a machine. If you own one set of media and want to
install and use on more than one machine, THEN you do need a licence.

The recent Adobe v. Softman case covered a significan portion of this ground
and ruled that Adobe software is "sold" and not merely "licenced".

Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!