Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Oct 2009 19:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 387243
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-28
I posted this fact in a thread about modification of Apple software by the end-user, but now, the judgement made in this case has only strengthened the argument. The judge seems to specifically name the consumer as the "owners of copyrighted material" which would correspond to the "owner of a copy of a computer program" from Title 17 section 117 of the US Code (see below).
"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 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"
Link: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.h...