jacobsievers

What? Are you really suggesting that software can’t be legally distributed by its author? And that a license is required before I can make copies for my own use? This is completely incorrect. What about fair use?

The software I'm referring to is "software, by default..." Surely you don't mean to imply that software is by default, not legally distributed.

The same law or principle that allows me to use the pages of a book as wallpaper. Why can't I use my legally obtained copy in anyway I choose so long as it doesn't violate any law or contract? My point is that copyright only protects from the making of copies, and licenses are something else entirely.

I am not. Of course it's not legal to use pirated software. By definition pirated software is illegally obtained. But a legally obtained copy can be run without a license, if none was required to obtain the software.

As for "leaked" software: again, if copies are illegally obtained then of course it's illegal to use them.

This case establishes that the copy in question was in fact a "copy" as defined by the copyright act, but the infringement was due to the disposition of the parties' rights via a license - not inherent to the copyright. This ruling is highly specific to the case.

I find it difficult to invest time in reading this when the author demonstrates such a basic misunderstanding of copyright:

>...software, by default, probably cannot be used, modified, or redistributed without a license from the copyright holder.

Of course it can be used and modified. It's the redistribution that is covered by copyright law.

>...you can’t really use software without someone giving you permission.

This is completely false, except where a license is required to obtain a copy to begin with. It is the license that creates the restriction, not the copyright.

If I've legitimately obtained a copy of your work, then I'm entitled to use it, read it, even make my own copies for personal use. Any new work I attempt to distribute would be measured against your original to determine infringement.

Mexico City is at 2200 meters. High altitude is going to be cooler.

I don't know, VHS Hi-Fi wasn't bad. It had a frequency response of 20Hz to 20kHz and signal-to-noise ratio about 70 dB.

>Of the important grains and/or cereals listed above...

I'm not sure what you meant to communicate with "and/or", but "and" would probably have sufficed.

Not buying any of it. If we judge by previous longevity, my guess is that Garamond will be the only one of those fonts still in use in the 30th century.

I don't get it. It pulls up journal entries from the 1970's on PubMed. Are those "on the internet"? What about Google Books results?

I think this refers to James Lovelock's work with radar in the 1950s. But it was hamsters, not mice.