Re: [tlug] GPL Quote

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Attila Kinali writes:

 > Europe has fair use too, though not so strictly defined and regulated
 > as the US.

I've heard that, but Wikipedia says nothing about it, except that in
most European countries there is a specific exemption *for teaching
purposes only*, and an article cited there say that exemption often is
explicitly limited to teachers in state schools.  The Wikipedia
article is silent about what else might be considered fair use outside
of the U.S.  So I don't say that it doesn't exist, but my impression
is that it is much more restricted than in the U.S.

 > And people are expected to use their brain when applying law ;->

People who write the kind of thing that follows probably should avoid
making comments about brain usage. ;-)

 > Thus, running programs, doing backups etc does not fall under fair use
 > or even copyright as you'd normally  buy/acuire a program
 > to run it and it's common practice to keep backups of important data.

That's absolute nonsense.  If normal use didn't fall under copyright,
you would not need to *buy* a program to get those rights, just
"acquire" it (as long as you return the original unharmed to the
owner, preferably before she notices it's in your CD drive).  What you
are talking about is an implicit *license* of copyright, not *absence*
of copyright nor fair use.

This matters because to the extent that restrictions are made
explicit, they may become enforceable, even though they would not be
enforceable in the default/implicit case.  Absence of copyright or
coverage by fair use would preclude enforcement even of explicit
restrictions.

 > So far, i'm not aware of any case where running programs or keeping
 > backups has caused a legal debate.

Maybe not in Europe, but both certainly have in the U.S.  The right to
make backups went all the way to the Supreme Court IIRC, although now
it's explicit in Title 17, I think (which means Congress wrote it into
law, possibly in the DMCA).