Bruce said:
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.)
"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
The copyright owner doesn't get to decide what is & is not a "fair use."
"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
Private non-commercial individual use.
"In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being
a
primary indicator of fair use." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
Of course public commercial use is sometimes legally allowable under
"fair
use." Private non-commercial use in the home would be the most flexible
form of "fair use."
2.. the nature of the copyrighted work
"In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material
copied is from a published work than an unpublished work." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
Not only published, but sold in retail stores as a commercial product.
3.. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
Entire. The Supreme Court in 1984, when considering the taping of
entire
movies on a VCR already concluded that individuals can copy an entire
copyrighted work as a "fair use."
Non-existent since copyright owner was paid for the original copy by the
indivdiual, thereby has already gotten a "fair return" for the creative
labor of the author(s).
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.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."
LOL! I just did!
(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.)
LOL! Until a greedy corporate copyright owner has the balls to sues an
individual for installing software on more than one computer,
individuals have every right to follow their own interpretation of "fair
use" when it comes to "fairly using" their copies of software.
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
LOL! Brucey-baby!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
