Charging the net...

[Brian Thomson]

One more round!

In article <qLTk212w164w at mantis.co.uk> mathew at mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes:
>thomson at hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) writes:
>> In article <4RuD24w164w at mantis.co.uk> mathew at mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>> ><1991May2.180616.26542 at eci386.uucp> woods at 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 at hub.toronto.edu