

MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc - Avshalom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc.

======
Avshalom
A case where it was ruled that loading a program constituted making a copy.
Copyright law was later changed to allow that making that copy, being
essential to actually using the software, was not a copyright violation. Still
this is why GPL have to include the right to freely make copies. Modifying a
program is not essential to using it so giving the ability to modify but not
the ability to make copies would be nonsensical under copyright law.

~~~
tzs
> A case where it was ruled that loading a program constituted making a copy.
> Copyright law was later changed to allow that making that copy, being
> essential to actually using the software, was not a copyright violation.

This is a nice illustration of one of the balancing acts involved in making
laws. Do you want fewer rules, or do you want simpler definitions?

Assuming you are going to have copyright in computer programs in your system,
then there are two ways you can reasonably do it.

1\. You can have a fairly simple definition of what constitutes a copy. That
will then include the thing in memory when you load a program from disk to run
it, and so you then also need a separate rule to make that not be a copyright
violation.

2\. You can have a more complicated definition of a copy that doesn't include
a program loaded into memory from a disk. Then you do not need any special
rule to allow for that memory image since it is out of scope for copyright
law.

I think #1 is the better approach. I like my definitions simple so I can keep
them all in my head when reading the rules. That way when I'm trying to
understand a particular situation I just need to cram into my head at once the
simple definitions and the specific rules relevant to that situation.

With the complex definitions/fewer rules approach I think you end up having to
hold more in your head, much of it irrelevant to whatever situation you are
trying to analyze.

I also like keeping definitions simpler and sticking the complexity in the
rules because we almost never get things right on the first try--or ever--and
so there are almost always going to be revisions. I'd rather have those in the
rules rather than the definitions, so that the definitions can provide a
stable vocabulary across many versions of the law.

