On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 16:26, Walter Landry wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless > > they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done > > neither, so you need not Cc: me.] > > > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: > > >> Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current > > >> interpretation of "Fair Use" applies to cases where there is no > > >> copying taking place. > > > > > > I think this is fundamentally unsound, given Texaco. I gave an actual > > > Fair Use analysis in another message. > > > > Fortunatly, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION v. TEXACO INC., 60 F.3d 913 > > (2nd Cir. 1994) is a rather narrow decision, and applies to a case > > where there actually was distribution (albiet internal) and where > > there was "institutional, systematic copying."[1]
Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall. > > I'm still at a loss as to how you intend for the this decision to > > apply to the elimination of Fair Use rights of software. Furthermore, > > I'd hope that RMS and others would prefer that people be able to do > > with software as they wished in their own homes, so long as they > > didn't distribute it. > > I've also read through the whole decision, and I can't see anywhere > that it talks about modifications not being fair use. It only talks > about copying. Yes, like I said, it's not the exact case I want. But it does talk about copying in the absence of distribution, which is what I was citing it for. > In fact, it seems to argue that if there had been > modifications (creating a transformative work) then there would be a > better defense against the copying. Sure, but it would have had to be substancial enough for fair use to kick in. And there's *still* the other three factors to consider. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
