Greetings --
Ah, yes. The much-ballyhoo-ed "Fair Use" argument. This is
nothing more than a red herring that isn't even applicable in the case
of making unauthorized copies of software for daily use, either
personal or commercial. Specifically:
"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the
public is entitled to freely use *portions* of copyrighted materials
for purposes of *commentary and criticism*. For example, if you wish
to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a
portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this
freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about
their work."
(
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/
index.html)
(Emphasis mine.)
"Judges use four factors in resolving fair use disputes, which are
discussed in detail below. It's important to understand that these
factors are only guidelines and the courts are free to adapt them to
particular situations on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a judge
has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination and
the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.
"The four factors judges consider are:
1.. the purpose and character of your use
2.. the nature of the copyrighted work
3.. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4.. the effect of the use upon the potential market. "
(
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/
9-b.html)
Feel free to peruse the entire article, which will make it
abundantly clear that there is no way that anyone could successfully
argue that installing a second copy of an operation system onto a
second computer, without the copyright holder's express permission,
for the sole purpose of not having to buy a second license, could
possibly meet the criteria of "Fair Use." (Although, I suppose it is
theoretically possible that a judge might so rule, someday, but I
seriously doubt that such a ruling would withstand appeal.)
You might also try actually reading the law, though it won't
support your position:
TITLE 17 , CHAPTER 1 , Sec. 107.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH
