Talk:Implied license

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I was (as a layman) somewhat taken aback by the record-album example. It seems to me that a more natural explanation would be that given possession (not even ownership) of a record and player, it would be nobodies business what I do with them---unless I use them for otherwise illegal activities (e.g. bank robbery), against the will of the actual owner, or in violation of an explicit or implicit agreement. (The latter two are arguably even special cases of the the first.)

Notably, using a computer to duplicate a CD/DVD could, depending on the circumstance, be "otherwise illegal" and/or a violation of agreement, and is thus not a counter-example.

This leads me to the question whether this example is generally valid, specific to the US (the reference given is US based), or even just a redundant way to reach the right conclusion. 88.77.155.77 (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]