Re: the status of Apple system software & vogon hypocrisy

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

No (taking your points in reverse order), Apple's firmware copyrights would
not be worthless (unless this is hyperbole), since one must be an owner to
make the copy.

The section of the statute does not limit its coverage those situations
where the copy is required, rather to ones where the making of the copy is
an essential step in its use.

The statute does not limit itself to situations where the making of the copy
is automatically made by the computer (rom to ram, etc., otherwise the
"authorize" and "adaptation" language would not be there).

I am not determined to avoid any facts (and there are no guns being held to
my head ;-))

The point is that the statutory language is quite broad, and could encompass
copying of ROM code by the licensed owner of a copy of that code.  If the
drafters of the statute wanted to exclude that, they could have easily have
done so.  Thus, a reasonable interpretation is that such copying is
permitted.  I am not asserting that this is the correct interpretation, or
the only interpretation.  But someone reading the statute might reasonably
conclude that copying the ROM code to use it in a computer is a permissible
activity.

If you like, I *could* argue the other way (for a price, of course;-))


However, I am a little confused now: are you arguing that this kind of
copying by an owner is illegal, but obtaining copies of copyrighted software
from FTP sites is legal?


Frank Townsend
Looking at a sunshiny day in beautiful Baltimore

Rubywand wrote in message <39606DA0.5C585F95@swbell.net>...
>Frank Townsend writes ...
>>
>> But look at this section of the Copyright Act:
>>
>> � 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
>> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of
>> Copy.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
>> infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
>> authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer
>> program provided:
>>
>> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
>> the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
>> that it is used in no other manner[.]
>>
>> I would have to say that a reasonable interpretation of this section
>> provides at least some legal authority for an owner to use a ROM in the
>> manner described by Jeff.
> ....
>
>     Yes, you would have to say that, if someone held a gun to your head or
>you were just determined to avoid the obvious facts of the situation.
>
>     A few programs do require that copies of originals be made and used.
For
>example, Wizardry V is played on copies of the originals because the 'Play
>Disks' are changed as you explore the multi-level maze. (Otherwise, making
a
>copy is permitted only for purposes of having a backup.)
>
>     Using an Apple IIgs does not _require_ anyone to rip out the ROM code
>and transport it to another computer. Were the mere wish to transport IIgs
>functionality adequate grounds for moving the ROM code, Apple's copyright
>(and every other firmware copyright) would be worthless.