[jacobsievers]

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.

[kmeisthax]

MAI Systems v. Peak Computer[0] says otherwise, at least in the 9th Circuit and at least covering use of the program. Other courts and Congress have bent over backwards to try and not disturb the ruling.

Even if it was overturned, modification has been a core part of copyright law since Folsom v. Marsh[1], where the Supreme Court interpreted the entire concept of derivative rights into the law. In fact, this ruling was so expansive they had to invent fair use at the same time just to avoid accidentally overturning the 1st Amendment.

Copyright creates the restriction, specifically to legally mandate a negotiation for the license that absolves you of the restriction. If you do not have a license, you have nothing but a pending lawsuit.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp....

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_v._Marsh

[jacobsievers]

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.

[EdTsft]

I have a hard time believing this, are you suggesting that it is perfectly legal to run pirated software so long as you never entered a license agreement with the creator? Or that the existence of a license you've never interacted with and potentially have no knowledge of has an impact on the legality of you running pirated software? What if a company's internal software is leaked, surely they have the right to prevent other companies from using it?

[jacobsievers]

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.

[paulryanrogers]

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

By what law or principle? IIRC most software is licensed and not sold. And the copyright dictates who defines the terms of the license for software which can be copied. Otherwise how would 'freeware' and trial software be practical if folks could just modify them to bypass any limiters therein?

[jacobsievers]

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.

[UncleEntity]

> The same law or principle that allows me to use the pages of a book as wallpaper.

First-sale doctrine?

Which, ironically, doesn’t apply in this case since the software wasn’t legally distributed.

[jacobsievers]

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.

[UncleEntity]

“Software, by default,” is created with all rights reserved for the author.

I understand where you’re trying to go with your argument but if the author doesn’t have a means of legal distribution then there’s no way to have a legal copy on your computer to modify and run.

—edit—

And a license doesn’t restrict the rights to software but grants exceptions to the default “all rights reserved” copyright grant.

[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?