Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:%23420dBjiEHA.384@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> Alex is merely expressing an opinion I am telling you what the
>>> position of the licensing team in Microsoft told me when I raised
>>> this very question with them.
>>
>> Which would be the licensing team's opinion, not a legal fact. MS's
>> legal team is not the law of the land.
>>
>> "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use";
>> the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a
>> use." This IS a legal fact.
>>
>
>
> Kurt the case you are citing is :-
>
> US Supreme Court Case
> "...Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) -
> Petitioner Sony Corp. manufactures home video tape recorders (VTRs),
> and markets them through retail establishments, some of which are also
> petitioners. Respondents own the copyrights on some of the television
> programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Respondents
> brought an action against petitioners in Federal District Court,
> alleging that VTR consumers had been recording some of respondents'
> copy-righted works that had been exhibited on commercially sponsored
> television and thereby infringed respondents' copyrights, and further
> that petitioners were liable for such copyright infringement because
> of their marketing of the VTRs. The Supreme Court explained that any
> individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
> copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use.
> The Court held that the recording accomplished by VTRs was only
> time-shifting in nature and even though 100% of the copyrighted work
> was copied, the use nonetheless constituted a fair use ..."
> AND has nothing to do with software licensing or end user license
> agreements for software products.

LOL! It has to do with the rights of the individual over that of the
copyright owner to limit "fair use."

Read it again.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

So until MS legally proves that it does "possess the exclusive right to such
a use" by an individual, MS's licensing team's opinion, has absolutely legal
precedent to support its OPINION.

What is "correct," is that MS has yet to legally prove its licensing claim
against an individuals right to "fair use."

Saying that MS's licensing opinion is more correct than mine, or any other
individuals, is just not based on any legal realities. It is an UNPROVEN
opinion, plain and simple.

At least SCO has the balls to sue and try to proven its unsubstantiated
licensing claims against IBM. Too bad your company doesn't when it comes to
private non-commerial use of MS software by individuals.

SCO is showing that they are using due diligence to back up their license.
MS has over a decade of failing to show due diligence, and would rather FUD
people into believing their LEGALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED licencing claims against
individuals.

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the
limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance
of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be
encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the
cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the
other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair
return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this
incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.
'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring
the monopoly,' this Court has said, 'lie in the general benefits derived by
the public from the labors of authors' . . . . When technological change has
rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in
light of this basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"