News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf] by msbarnett on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @01:25PM (#7945419)
> You don't own media content. You own a license for media content. Your use of the media is dictated by its license. In general you don't need a license to consume a copyrighted work that you received legally. There was no "click to agree" on the last book I read. You only need a licrense to exceed what copyright allows. Some software companies have argued that the hierarchical storage of a computer violates copyright, and thus all software requires a license to run. But this case was not about software.

A number of courts have broadly agreed with those software companies. While you're correct that you don't need a license to read a book, this is true (broadly) because you don't need to make a copy of a book in any meaningful sense in order to read it.

But to run a piece of software, or read an ebook on a computer, or play a music file, you do need to copy it -- not just into hierarchical storage but also into RAM -- and this brings copyright into play (as far as the courts have generally been concerned), and thus necessitates all of the end-user licensing of digital media.

Re:Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf] by nitrogen on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @09:13PM (#7947642)
...not just into hierarchical storage but also into RAM...

Just to clarify, by "hierarchical storage" I mean the entire storage hierarchy of the computer, multiple tiers of which may contain a copy of any given data in use by the computer: registers->cache->RAM->HDD Cache->HDD[->backups]

Re:Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf] by AnthonyMouse on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @01:48PM (#7945590)
Can you cite a case at the appellate level that justifies copyright licensing on the basis of ephemeral copies in memory?
Re:Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf] by andrewschleifer on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @02:13PM (#7945744)
Re:Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf] by AnthonyMouse on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @02:43PM (#7945942)
So according to Wikipedia there is a specific statute that expressly disavows the notion that someone who bought a copy of a computer program would infringe by running it (17 USC 117), the court found that a repair tech wasn't the owner of the copy so the statute didn't apply, and Congress immediately passed another law reversing the effect of the court's decision.

I guess that's technically what I asked for, but I don't think pointing out the existence of that statute does much for the argument that you need a separate license to run a computer program you paid for.

Let's try this again: Can you cite a relevant case that hasn't subsequently been invalidated?