Re: RAM copies limited

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > I just found that is utterly flabbergasting in its implications
>
> Really? They read the law and applied it. Why would you find a 
> correctly reasoned argument to be flabbergasting? Oh, wait...
>
> > A typical PC with a GHZ clock could read segments of a computer
> >  program into memory and execute and wipe that memory in 
> > microseconds.
>
> 17 USC § 101 A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression
>  when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the 
> authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to 
> permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated 
> for a period of more than transitory duration.
>
> Just because you would like something to be a copyright violation
>  doesn't it make it so. Don't you tell that to GPL proponents?

Uh. . . moron, I find it flabbergasting that the court overturned
prevailing circuit precedent. I never intimated that I wished it to
establish infringement. The decision may have the potential to
circumvent the reproduction right concerning computers, which I
find establishes a basis for very interesting speculation.

You simply wish to reflexively oppose anything I state i any
opinion whatsoever. I'll bet if I claimed that horse turds didn't
look tasty, you'd eat one and then claim they were delicious.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)