Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it goes.
The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.
> Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM
You can't just drop an extraordinary claim like that without a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the case you're describing.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
No. That's not how the law and the legal system work.
The law was written prior to the existence of digital computers.
That law, as written, made copying a program into computer memory to execute it illegal.
The law was dumb.
But judges enforce the law. That's their job. They have discretion when laws conflict with each other (including with the Constitution) or provide space for ambiguity or flexibility, but otherwise the law is the law.
So Congress did their job (a novel concept these days, I know) and updated the law to reflect the realities in modern technology.
You don't want judges legislating from the bench. If laws need to be updated, lawmakers should update them. That's how the system works.
Call me crazy, but I think it's a good law, and I don't think that being vague in law helps anyone other than people who want to selectively prosecute their enemies.
I remember the battles around '2000 when the record industry tried to get paid for each instance when parts of the music files were buffered (because they were "copies"). They weren't laughed out of court. These days I think they would.
IANAL, but I've written a bit about copyright and had it reviewed by a very good IP lawyer. There was at one point some controversy about this point--especially in the context of computer software licensing. But, as I understand it, current case law allows copying where it's necessary to functionally make use of a copyrighted piece of work.
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
If we're going to be pedantic about it, just playing a piece of music, from whatever medium it is stored in, is making a (n analog and transient) copy of it.
So executing software actually isn’t an infringement of copyright, as an exception exists in the law? An explicit exception is an actual exception (unlike “fair use” which remains technically illegal until brought to a trial). AFAIK, IANAL.
The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.