Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:30:28AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Well, making a copy in RAM is making a copy, legally; this is apparently
>> the
>> caselaw in the US. I'm sorry that I don't have the reference.
>
> Loading a register might also also constitute copying, but in the
> U.S. that's already covered under fair use. But then there's L1 cache,
> and the L2 cache which wouldn't be covered under fair use.
Well, they probably would be covered by the "essential step in the
utilization of the computer program" clause.
> And, in at least some cases, making a copy in RAM is equivalent to making
> a copy on disk (because of swap). And then there's any cache on the
"essential step in the utilization of the computer program"
> It's conceivable that playing a sound recording could constitute making
> a copy in air. Or that playing a video recording could constitute making
> a copy in light.
Nah, they don't. The question in the US is whether something is "fixed in a
medium of expression". That's settled.
<snip>
> I maintain that any jurisdiction which allows for the execution of a
> propietary program (one which makes no provision for the user to make
> further copies) must have some sort of concept of reasonableness which
> grants the same sort of freedoms implicitly.
We wish. :-) Well, it has some concept of reasonableness, but it's very,
very, narrow.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: