[Info-vax] vax vms licenses

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 4/20/2022 8:26 PM, Don Baccus wrote:
> 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.
> 
> "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?

That was a reference to below:

> 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,

Like that it is wrong?

:-)

> but I was unaware that you are enamored of constructing strawmen
> then propping them up and knocking them down over and over again.

Telling that what you actual wrote is wrong is hardly a strawman.

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

Everybody know that:
- it is true
- it is irrelevant for the topic at hand

Arne