Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

Isaac wrote:
[...]
> While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position
> seems to be otherwise.  I'm not sure which court decision that line is
> from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts
> in CA contrary to this one.

Regarding 17 USC 117, take also this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf

My reading of it is that even under contractual restrictions, 17 USC 
117 bars cause of action for copyright infringement when "the party 
exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the 
program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for purposes 
of § 117(a)." 

regards,
alexander.