Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?
"Michael Poole" <email@example.com> wrote in message
[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org">news:[🔎] email@example.com...
This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under
17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an
essential step in the utilization of the program. Under 17 USC
117(b), you need authorization from the copyright owner to transfer
software that has been modified in that way. Criticism and comment
(what I think you mean by "annotating [a book]") are protected as fair
use in 17 USC 107; functional change and elaboration are not.
17 USC 106 (which 17 USC 117 references) subparagraph b, is rediculous.
What good reason should I be unable to create derivitive works? I can
understand not being able to publicly display or demonstate, or distibute,
or dispose of it in any way except destruction. But not being allowed to
create any deritive work?! (interrobang would have been better here, but
most charsets lack it. :( )
I mean I should be able to for example buy an unfinished paining and finish
it privately for my own satifaction. However that law (unless there is a
later exception) explicitly prohibits that as the modified painting is
clearly a derivitive work.
Besides, barring invasion of privacy, that subparagraph is nearly impossible
to enforce. Even with a warrent, investigators are authorized only to find
evidence for crimes suspected, not search around to try to find other
Classical copyright is the effective law. It is what more or less existed
prior to the DCMA. It was how most people veiwed the law. It is hard to
convict somebody for violating a law that they honestly have no reason to
belive they might have violated. Besides as the US is a common law country
the primary law is caselaw. If a decision has been made on written law, it
stands (in effect, according to convention, not in law), even if it
contradicts said written law. The caselaw can only be overridden by a higher
court or new written law (again, in effect, according to convention, not in
Also in general (classical copyright law) there are no real
restrictions on private copying, except in the case where you dispose of
original. In that case you must dispose of the copies in the exact same
or destroy said copies.
I do not know what "classical copyright law" is, but that is not the
case under any modern system that I know of.