Xref: utzoo misc.legal:25871 alt.sources.d:1793 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!hub.toronto.edu!thomson Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.sources.d From: thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) Subject: Re: Charging the net... Message-ID: <1991May7.150748.5923@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Organization: University of Toronto References: <1991May6.110052.11870@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Date: 7 May 91 19:07:48 GMT Lines: 48 One more round! In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: >thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) writes: >> In article <4RuD24w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: >> ><1991May2.180616.26542@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes >> >> 2. Acts not constituting infringement of Copyright. >> >> .... >> >> (l) the making by a person who owns a copy of a computer >> >> programme, which copy is authorized by the owner of the >> >> copyright, [...] >[...] >> I think you have misread the statute. >> It does not require that "ownership of the copy" be authorized, but that >> the copy be authorized. >> That is, the copy must have been created with the consent of the copyright >> holder. > >Right. And the copyright holder is stating that he does not give consent to >copies being made unless the person to whom the copies are given agrees to >abide by the conditions of ownership. Except that, by the time the copy is received, the copy has already been made. Posting something to the network is like putting a sheet of paper in a photocopier and pushing the "ON" button. If the person who posts does so with the consent of the copyright holder, then the copy is authorized. Once that question is settled, the copyright holder has no more control (none based on copyright, at least) on what happens to the copy, except regarding its further duplication. [of course, this may differ in the UK] I have no idea of the effect of arbitrary conditions on that authorization, but I strongly suspect that, if copyright is the basis for enforcing such conditions, the copyright holder would have a case against the poster rather than the eventual possessor. Confusion arises as a result of the common practice of following a copyright notice with a statement that "Use of this product is hereby permitted under the following conditions ...", which gives the impression that the copyright and usage conditions are somehow related. I do not believe they are. But then ... I am not a lawyer and mine is not a competent legal opinion. -- Brian Thomson, CSRI Univ. of Toronto utcsri!uthub!thomson, thomson@hub.toronto.edu