Proposed change to copyright

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by alfred, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. alfred

    alfred Guest

    It has been talked about here, but there is one thing that troubles me.
    The MED proposes to allow an exception so that it will not infringe
    the reproduction right when "transient" copies are "made by computers or
    communication networks (such as the Internet) as a result of automatic
    or inevitable technical processes. These processes are generally
    designed to increase efficiency. Examples of transient copying, to which
    the exception would apply, would include the routine temporary storage
    in the random access memory ("RAM") of a computer for the purpose of
    executing an authorised program or browsing the World Wide Web."

    I know we have talked about cache and how that ought to be a protected
    exception. What I am wondering about is the actual example the MED has
    suggested (quoted above) - that it is OK to have a transient copy in
    RAM. My knowledge of the actual physical workings of RAM is pretty
    limited: am I wrong in my understanding that at present there is no way
    to actually know what is in RAM at any one time? It seems to me that
    protecting whatever happens to be in RAM doesn't actually do much (a)
    because it is so volatile and (b) it cannot be identified anyway. Or is
    this an example of barking up the wrong tree?
     
    alfred, Dec 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. alfred wrote:
    > It has been talked about here, but there is one thing that troubles
    > me. The MED proposes to allow an exception so that it will not
    > infringe
    > the reproduction right when "transient" copies are "made by computers
    > or communication networks (such as the Internet) as a result of
    > automatic or inevitable technical processes>


    > What I am wondering about is the actual example the MED
    > has suggested (quoted above) - that it is OK to have a transient copy
    > in RAM. My knowledge of the actual physical workings of RAM is pretty
    > limited: am I wrong in my understanding that at present there is no
    > way to actually know what is in RAM at any one time? It seems to me
    > that protecting whatever happens to be in RAM doesn't actually do
    > much (a) because it is so volatile and (b) it cannot be identified
    > anyway. Or is this an example of barking up the wrong tree?


    They're saying that it's legal for the computer to have a copy of things in
    RAM as it's working on it. I'm not sure what your question is. You can tell
    what is in RAM easily - if an application is running, it's in RAM
    *somewhere*. You can drill down further and access the memory space of that
    application, if you really cared what was happening inside.

    CHeers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Dec 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Grant Robertson

    Proposed Image Hierarchy File Name Encoding Scheme

    Grant Robertson, May 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    448
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    818
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=
    Jul 15, 2004
  3. Ian Robelot
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    466
    Charlie Ih
    Apr 12, 2005
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,084
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  5. JBS
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    859
Loading...

Share This Page