<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for DioGratia</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/DioGratia/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:42:22 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Newsflash to FCC: iPhone is a &lt;i&gt;Closed&lt;/i&gt; Platform, and Consumers Love It</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/newsflash_to_fcc_iphone_is_a_iclosedi_platform_and_consumers_love_it/#comment-13820196</link><description>Shouldn't this be an Federal Trade Commission matter and not one for the Federal Communications Commission?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">DioGratia</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:42:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Technology Liberation Front  &amp;raquo; Archive   &amp;raquo; The First Sale Doctrine and Copyleft</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/the_technology_liberation_front_raquo_archive_raquo_the_first_sale_doctrine_and_copyleft/#comment-1455748</link><description>LarsG,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It doesn't appear to be copyright infringement for the act of loading a copy of software for execution, otherwise requiring a license.  17 USC § 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;(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:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;(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, or &lt;br&gt; ...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Vault v. Quaid appears primarily involved with the conflict between state law and §117, wherein the state law gave authority in a contract of adhesion in excess of  copyright law (perpetual ban on making copies, versus lifetime of the author plus 50 years).  Archival copies were found to be non-infringing under §106 as allowed by §117(a)(2), and the contract of adhesion (read EULA) was found to be invalid. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;§117 can be described as maintaining the balance of rights between the copy owner and the copyright holder when viewing the intended use of software, where transient or incidental copies are required by the technology.  Peak vs. MAI addressed balance issues, and may have resulted in a 1998 amendment to §117 to provide for copies for repair purposes, the issue being that the repairer was not the owner of the copy as specified in §117 (a)(1).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Neither case affected the rights of the owner of legal copy of a software to load the software into memory for execution.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;IANAL, etc.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">DioGratia</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:05:35 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>