[Info-vax] vax vms licenses

[Don Baccus]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 9:22 PM, Don Baccus wrote: 
> > "I would not count on courts allowing software copying as long as it is 
> > for personal use - that is not the common interpretation." 
> > 
> > Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted 
> > material. You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but 
> > that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing 
> > someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes.
> Fair use is a well known concept. 
> 
> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use. 
> 
> Not even close. 
> 
> Arne

"Fair use is a well known concept.

But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.

Not even close."

You even quoted what I said:

"> Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted
> material. You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but
> that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing
> someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes."

And you still thwack at a strawman?

Now when I said this:

"> There's also the notion
> of "fair use" and the fact that there are some court rulings in the
> US that support the notion that using software that is only protected
> by copyright for personal use is "fair use"."

Obviously I should've provided more context when I first stated this,
but I was unaware that you are enamored of constructing strawmen
then propping them up and knocking them down over and over again.

Note that 

"Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use"

Is not a statement that

"private use automatically makes the use fall under fair use."

That last is your own private strawman which you then knocked down
by saying:

"private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use."

Done with you.