Re: Software 'licensing' <RANT>

[rubywand@swbell.net]

Christopher D. Heer writes ...

> 
> It was 3 Mar 1997 09:47:55 -0500.  I was reading instead of > working.  And
> Dark_Dude <Dark_Dude@darkcastle.ecore.fnet.org> said:
> 
> >In Article <5f714r$joc@News.Dal.Ca>,
> ><at217@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> 
> >>> situation... How many people can really afford 2 copies of each program?
> 
> >>Just as you cannot legally steal a second computer because you can't
> >>afford to buy it, if you cannot afford to buy two copies, you'll have to
> >>make due with one. The rules are the same despite the easier duplication
> >>of software.
> 
> >I understand, but still I find this a rediculous law. Escpecially the giant
> >software companies would earn more & more. (Does Bill REALLY need more money?
> >:-)
> 
> Stealing is always easier if you rationalise that you're taking 
> from some big faceless company with lots of dough ....


     It is perfectly legal for the owner of a software product to 
make backup copies. If the product is copy-protected, it is 
perfectly legal to defeat the protection in order to make a backup.

     In fact, software makers do, generally, encourage purchasers to 
make backups. Some even include special copiers for backing up 
copy-protected wares. Copy-protected products are, in most cases, 
more likely to fail. Having to replace these, essentially, defective 
products is an expense software makers prefer to avoid.  

     There is nothing ambiguous about the right to make 
backups. Unless he or she is unable to make a copy, there is no need 
for a purchaser to buy second or third copies _for_ _backup_.

     A backup is just that, a copy to use in case the original 
fails. It is a copyright violation to distribute copies of a 
copyrighted product, say, in an office setting, unless permission 
for distribution is obtained from the copyright holder. 


Rubywand