[Info-vax] vax vms licenses

[Don Baccus]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:33:57 PM UTC-7, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 8:39 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: 
> > On 4/20/2022 7:12 PM, gah4 wrote: 
> >> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote: 
> >> 
> >> (snip) 
> >> 
> >>> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use. 
> >> 
> >> I suppose. 
> >> 
> >> But if it really is private use, how will anyone who could possibly sue, 
> >> know about it? 
> >> 
> >> Someone mentioned the names for this list, but those might not be using 
> >> VMS at all, or might be using it on non-VAX. Just because someone 
> >> subscribes to this list, would (likely) not be enough for a search warrant 
> >> to search a house for all VAX/VMS users. 
> >> 
> >> Reminds me of discussion about certain sexual acts (between consenting 
> >> adults) that were (and maybe still are) illegal. How exactly were 
> >> violators to be found? 
> >> 
> >> People have mentioned ways to get around the license problem, including 
> >> resetting the date, and that might even violate DMCA, but I don't remember 
> >> anyone mentioning actually doing it, and especially not the location of the 
> >> machine, for issuing the search warrant. 
> > 
> > There are two separate questions: 
> > 1) is it legal?
> If anyone is willing to enforce any copyrights, then no.
> > 2) if not - is there a risk of getting caught?
> Unless someone admits to it, not a chance. Nobody is looking.
> -- 
> David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450 
> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da... at tsoft-inc.com 
> DFE Ultralights, Inc. 
> 170 Grimplin Road 
> Vanderbilt, PA 15486

"That was a reference to below:"

No, you specifically quoted my clarification and responded to it:

">>> 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."

Now you say you were responding to something I said earlier which I should've
worded better saying it can be fair use, but isn't always fair use.  But my clarification
was clear.

And you quoted it.  And responded to it.  And stated that my clarification was wrong.

"> 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"

Hobbyists generally are interested in learning about the software, researching it,
studying it.   In other words, Fair Use.

So it is very relevant to the topic at hand.

But avoiding the licensing mechanism does not fall under simple Copyright law,
but rather contract law and possibly the DCMA.

Go pound sand.