Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com> writes:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com> writes:
> >> But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face
> >> of it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the
> >> possessor of a copy is is really a technical detail that can be
> >> changed or made unclear via technical means (e.g., ASP).
> > The argument is simple. Making a new possessor of a copy requires
> > *copying*, and is a legitimate thing for copyright to control.
> > Adding a new user does not necessarily involve copying, and it is
> > not legitimate for copyright to control this.
> My understanding (IANAL, etc) is that public performance could cover
> this sort of thing (the problem would be scaling it back to cover only
> what we want it to). Are you simply objecting to that on principle,
> or is there some reason people shouldn't or couldn't do that?
I don't think there's any reason to think that constitutes public
performance. Is there *any* case law?