[Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done neither, so you need not Cc: me.] On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: >> Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current >> interpretation of "Fair Use" applies to cases where there is no >> copying taking place. > > I think this is fundamentally unsound, given Texaco. I gave an actual > Fair Use analysis in another message. Fortunatly, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION v. TEXACO INC., 60 F.3d 913 (2nd Cir. 1994) is a rather narrow decision, and applies to a case where there actually was distribution (albiet internal) and where there was "institutional, systematic copying."[1] I'm still at a loss as to how you intend for the this decision to apply to the elimination of Fair Use rights of software. Furthermore, I'd hope that RMS and others would prefer that people be able to do with software as they wished in their own homes, so long as they didn't distribute it. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm -- Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgptjjszoHdFj.pgp
Description: PGP signature