Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!rex!rouge!lar From: lar@pc.usl.edu (Robert, Lane A.) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Is AMAX doomed? Message-ID: Date: 14 Oct 90 15:50:01 GMT References: <34522@cup.portal.com> <37923@ut-emx.uucp> <1990Oct11.101821.13021@maths.tcd.ie> <90286.212538JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> Sender: anon@rouge.usl.edu Reply-To: lar@usl.edu (Robert, Lane A.) Organization: Univ. of Southwestern LA, Lafayette Lines: 27 In-reply-to: JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu's message of 14 Oct 90 01:25:38 GMT In article <90286.212538JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: Something is wrong here somewhere, and it may be your book, or that you took a quote out of context. But I think we all know for a FACT that we are legally entitled to make a single backup copy of any software we buy, as long as 1) we only run one copy on one machine at any one time and 2) we do not distribute the software. Your quote above contradicts this as far as I can tell, so as I said, either your book is wrong, or this quote is out of context and needs to have its scope clarified. Perhaps the book dates to before that part of the law was written. But this provision only allows one to make a copy for backup purposes - not for use in another machine. Perhaps that line "assuming compliance with statutory requirements" is the clincher? Maybe, but I interpret this to mean you did all the necessary paperwork, inserted all the required copyright messages, dotted all the i's, crossed all the t's, etc. This thread has gotten a bit far afield for this group. Any lawyer types out there feel like settling this once and for all? Lane lar@usl.edu