Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face > >> of it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the > >> possessor of a copy is is really a technical detail that can be > >> changed or made unclear via technical means (e.g., ASP). > > > > The argument is simple. Making a new possessor of a copy requires > > *copying*, and is a legitimate thing for copyright to control. > > Adding a new user does not necessarily involve copying, and it is > > not legitimate for copyright to control this. > > My understanding (IANAL, etc) is that public performance could cover > this sort of thing (the problem would be scaling it back to cover only > what we want it to). Are you simply objecting to that on principle, > or is there some reason people shouldn't or couldn't do that?
I don't think there's any reason to think that constitutes public performance. Is there *any* case law?
