Message from discussion Linux on Xbox? (was: Canada vs. Microsoft)
From: is...@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac)
Subject: Re: Linux on Xbox? (was: Canada vs. Microsoft)
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3BF5A8D2.AFF67870@mohawksoft.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3BFA3251.email@example.com> <3BFA691E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:14:32 GMT
X-Trace: typhoon.southeast.rr.com 1006460072 126.96.36.199 (Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:14:32 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:14:32 EST
Organization: Road Runner - NC
On 22 Nov 2001 09:09:24 +0100, Lee Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <t...@commercelinks.net> writes:
> T> That is false. You are allowed to do that because there is no
> T> law saying you are not allowed to do that. There is, however,
> T> a specific statute which states that it is illegal to rent
> T> software without the explicit authorization of the copyright
> T> owner.
>Why should software receive a different treatment by the laws?
Not for logical reasons but for pragmatic business ones. Rented software
was demonstrated to be a simple way for rental shops to make a profit off of
people who were using the rental to make cheap illegal copies of software.
Most of the exceptions in US law are attempts to balance the copyright holders
rights with the rights and inconvenience to the public. In the case of
software it was thought that the balance required disallowing rental in
order to prevent illicit copying.
But the answer is not necessarily a fundamental truth, and perhaps your
jurisdiction is different from the US.