Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivativedistros"

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
>> > "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
>> > form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs
>> > or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
>> > copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy
>> > of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a
>> > floppy disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
>> > 109."
>> 
>> But that doesn't clarify the status of a copy downloaded to a hard
>> disk and then copied to CD-R(W). One cannot directly write to a CD
>> type device, because the file has to be written to another file
>> that contains the filesystem. Is this intermediate copy lawful?
>
> Uhmm. I think that all those intermediate copies fall under 17 USC
> 117 "archival purposes" (at least for programs ;-) ). Intermediate
> archival purposes.

I suppose that you look up "archive" in a dictionary of your choice.
I consider it likely that the laws have not really caught up to all
the temporary copies created in the purpose of dealing with computer
programs.  So judges will likely rule in the spirit of laws, not as
much in the exact wording.

> The transaction (start of downloading) conveys ownership.  From that
> moment, you have a title to a copy being downloaded. You have the
> right to create archival copies. Including intermediate archival
> copies. You create archival copies first (initial downloading) and
> then they are deleted. A bit of a stretch (but read the statute's
> wording carefully). Still perfectly reasonable. No?

Too clever.  Judges don't tend to like that.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum