gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (12/17/85)
I am curious as to the legality of taking a copyrighted ROM from my
own computer and making a copy of it (with changes) and then using this
new ROM in my computer (I had to do this to support an oddball disk on
my IBM PC/AT). Did I do anything illegal (Egad!). What if a friend
who also owns a copy of the original ROM wants a copy of the new ROM.
Can I give him one? How about those companies who sell
add-on disks for the AT and give you modified IBM ROM's - are they
legally doing so, do they need an agreement with IBM?
Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 922-1134
..!ihnp4!houxm!castor!{rer,pcrat!rer} <--Replies to here, not to homxb!!!ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/17/85)
I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a large grain of salt. > I am curious as to the legality of taking a copyrighted ROM from my > own computer and making a copy of it (with changes) and then using this > new ROM in my computer (I had to do this to support an oddball disk on > my IBM PC/AT). Did I do anything illegal (Egad!). What if a friend > who also owns a copy of the original ROM wants a copy of the new ROM. > Can I give him one? How about those companies who sell > add-on disks for the AT and give you modified IBM ROM's - are they > legally doing so, do they need an agreement with IBM? When you made a copy of the IBM ROM without their permission, you violated the copyright law. Not only that, but you've admitted it. If IBM decides to sue you, I expect you won't have a chance. If your friend wants a copy of the new ROM, you must get permission from IBM before you make said copy. If those companies who sell add-ons are giving you modified IBM ROMs, they need permission from IBM also to do so. The law as I understand it is extremely simple: you need permission from the copyright holder in order to make a copy of a copyrighted work. Period. It doesn't matter what you're using the copy for. A translation into another language is a copy. A modification is also a copy. So is a paraphrase.
lotto@talcott.UUCP (Jerry Lotto) (12/18/85)
In article <4712@alice.UUCP>, ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a large grain of salt. > > > I am curious as to the legality of taking a copyrighted ROM from my > > own computer and making a copy of it (with changes) and then using this > > new ROM in my computer (I had to do this to support an oddball disk on > > my IBM PC/AT). Did I do anything illegal (Egad!). What if a friend > > ... > When you made a copy of the IBM ROM without their permission, you > violated the copyright law. Not only that, but you've admitted > it. If IBM decides to sue you, I expect you won't have a chance. I am not a lawyer either, but I cannot be as sure as you that anything is wrong here. You copy the OS all of the time (for use by one person, one machine...). Some people even hack the thing to bits (eg: the many useful and interesting patches which have graced this and other newsgroups). Copyright gives one exclusive rights to make AND DISPOSE of a product for a period of time. If I want to rewire my machine, rewrite the OS or a ROM or disassemble everything I can get my hands on for personal use, my RIGHT to do so is protected under a much higher law than copyright... -- Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept. UUCP: {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!lhasa!lotto ARPA: lotto@harvard.EDU CSNET: lotto%harvard@csnet-relay
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (12/18/85)
There is nothing wrong with making a copy of a copyrighted work within
the fair use doctrine. For example, you can make a copy of copyrighted
software you buy for your own back-up purposes (in the absense of
contract restrictions to the contrary). You are also free to
arbitrarily modify the work for your own use. You can modify an IBM rom
just like you can cut up a copyrighted book and paste pieces of it back
together with additions/deletions. If your modifications are extremely
extensive, you may actually come up with a new work no longer subject to
the original copyright. For example, if you compile a histograph of the
frequency of occurance of different byte values in the IBM rom, this
would be a new work which you could copyright, sell, etc., without
restrictions despite the copyright of the IBM original. But it sounds
like you made relatively minor changes or additions and the unchanged
part is still fully subject to the IBM copyright. The copyright holder
has the exclusive right to vend the work. That is, they control the
first sale. Thus you are directly violating IBM's copyright if you
create and sell something subject to the IBM copyright without IBM's
permission. The copyright holder has no control (through copyright)
after the first sale so you are free to buy IBM roms, modify them
(leaving the IBM copyright notice and possibly adding one of your own
protecting your additions), and then re-sell them, unless restricted by
some contract with IBM, etc.
PS: I'm not a lawyer.
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deehenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/19/85)
> If those companies who sell add-ons are giving you modified IBM ROMs, > they need permission from IBM also to do so. As I understand it, IBM to date has a policy of refusing permission. In general, those companies are probably supplying ROMs that do the same things the IBM ones do, but which were developed independently. There is at least one company (Phoenix? something like that) which has made a great deal of money solely by supplying independently-developed IBM-workalike ROMs to the PC-clone industry. > The law as I understand it is extremely simple: you need permission > from the copyright holder in order to make a copy of a copyrighted > work. Period. It doesn't matter what you're using the copy for. There are certain exemptions for "fair use", which essentially means use that does not deprive the copyright holder of recognition or potential income. Making a copy so that you can use two copies simultaneously in two computers, having only bought one copy, is out. But there is nothing illegal about modifying a copyrighted work. Alas, current ROM technology does not permit selective modification. It is certainly ethical, and quite possibly legal, to copy for your own experimenting, provided that you only *use* one copy at a time, and could not fill your needs equally well by buying the standard ROMs from IBM. It would seem ridiculous to require you to buy ROMs from IBM just so you can erase them and use them to hold your own version. [The fact that IBM *won't* sell you extra ROMs is largely irrelevant.] Supplying a friend with a copy is much more dubious, unless you make the copy by erasing and then re-programming his existing ROMs. You have to extend the use-only-one-at-a-time rule to him. Beware that this whole area is a legal minefield, with a lot of fuzzy issues and unresolved questions. Note also that what's ethical and what's legal can be two different things, given the confused state of laws on the matter. I am not a lawyer; consult an expert before doing anything rash. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (12/19/85)
Hey you lawyers out there: Help this layman out: I write: >> I am curious as to the legality of taking a copyrighted ROM from my >> own computer and making a copy of it (with changes) and then using this >> new ROM in my computer (I had to do this to support an oddball disk on >> my IBM PC/AT). Did I do anything illegal (Egad!). Andrew Koenig (a non-lawyer, too, responds: >When you made a copy of the IBM ROM without their permission, you >violated the copyright law. Not only that, but you've admitted >it. If IBM decides to sue you, I expect you won't have a chance. >The law as I understand it is extremely simple: you need permission >from the copyright holder in order to make a copy of a copyrighted >work. Period. It doesn't matter what you're using the copy for. >A translation into another language is a copy. A modification is also >a copy. So is a paraphrase. My simplistic view is that I at least have the right to copy the ROM for backup purposes. After all, I can do that with software on other media, such as floppy disks. So I think making the unmodified copy of the ROM is OK. Now, I also think that it makes sense that I can change the software to suit my own purposes. I'm allowed to write in books I own, aren't I? I can tape myself singing to a record I own (although, I might be violating noise pollution laws :-). Isn't this "Fair Use". Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 922-1134 ..!ihnp4!houxm!castor!{rer,pcrat!rer} <--Replies to here, not to homxb!!!
ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (12/19/85)
In article <4712@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a large grain of salt. > >> I am curious as to the legality of taking a copyrighted ROM from my >> own computer and making a copy of it (with changes) and then using this >> new ROM in my computer (I had to do this to support an oddball disk on >> my IBM PC/AT). Did I do anything illegal (Egad!). ... > >When you made a copy of the IBM ROM without their permission, you >violated the copyright law. Not only that, but you've admitted >it. If IBM decides to sue you, I expect you won't have a chance. > Isn't there a 'fair use' provision in the copyright law? (For example archival backup copies of computer software (like LOTUS 1-2-3) are generally OK, (except in Illinois, apparently)). IBM would be generating bad publicity if they sued a poor fellow who needed to modify their ROM just to get his PC to work. This is like a public-domain patch to WordStar, in my opinion. >If your friend wants a copy of the new ROM, you must get permission >from IBM before you make said copy. True, this wouldn't fall under fair use, but you could certainly tell your friend what locations to modify to get his system to support the same disk, then he should be able to do it himself. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa) Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp Fido: Ralph Hyre at Net 129, Node 0 (Pitt-Bull) Phone: (412)578-2847,578-3275
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/20/85)
> I am not a lawyer either, but I cannot be as sure as you that anything > is wrong here. You copy the OS all of the time (for use by one > person, one machine...). Some people even hack the thing to bits (eg: > the many useful and interesting patches which have graced this and > other newsgroups). Copyright gives one exclusive rights to make AND > DISPOSE of a product for a period of time. If I want to rewire my > machine, rewrite the OS or a ROM or disassemble everything I can get > my hands on for personal use, my RIGHT to do so is protected under a > much higher law than copyright... There is a difference between modifying something and copying it. The source for my information is an article about the copyright law that appeared in Computing Surveys some time ago. I can probably scare down the reference if there's enough interest.
fnf@unisoft.UUCP (12/20/85)
In article <4712@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a large grain of salt. > >> I am curious as to the legality of taking a copyrighted ROM from my >> own computer and making a copy of it (with changes) and then using this >> new ROM in my computer (I had to do this to support an oddball disk on > >When you made a copy of the IBM ROM without their permission, you >violated the copyright law. Not only that, but you've admitted >it. If IBM decides to sue you, I expect you won't have a chance. I'm not so sure. Seems that the law allows you to make *archival* copies of copyrighted software. If they only went after you for making the copy, you could always claim you were just backing it up :-). If I was on the jury, I doubt I would convict him. Now giving away copies, that is another matter. -Fred
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/20/85)
> My simplistic view is that I at least have the right to copy the ROM > for backup purposes. After all, I can do that with software on other > media, such as floppy disks. a Only if the copyright holder allows it.
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/20/85)
> There is nothing wrong with making a copy of a copyrighted work within > the fair use doctrine. For example, you can make a copy of copyrighted > software you buy for your own back-up purposes (in the absense of > contract restrictions to the contrary). a Since this gainsays what I have heard, I'd appreciate a reference to back it up.
dickj@tektronix.UUCP (Dick Jackson) (12/20/85)
I'm not a lawyer either, but since I really try to be honest I've done some looking into this. (Is it ok to copy audio albums?) What I've found is this: 1) laws are interpreted by courts on cases brought by plaintiffs. (This is important) 2) The copyright law is meant to protect the owner of a work. 3) When you buy the rights to something, you now have rights, limited though they may be. (Called something like 'fair use') 4) You may not redistribute in anyway a copyrighted work to anyone, for profit or not. (This could void a possible sale by the owner). 5) You may do various things to your copy, for your own use. All my contacts have agreed that buying an album for myself and taping onto a cassette for my own use is 'fair use' as long as I retain the original and all copies. (a) I've bought the album (b) I don't have a turntable in my car (c) Have you ever heard the quality of a typical store I cannot, however, borrow a friend's album, tape it and return the orginal to him. As this applies, I would say the original writer in no way violated the law. He took what he owned and made a new version for his own use. As far as others go, if they have their own copy of the original, again they have their own 'fair use' rights. Also remember that IBM wants to keep from losing money. Unless you void a sale, they have no motivation to care, and law is determined by prosecution. Copyrights very closely parallel patents. If I buy a patented product, once I've got it I can do just about anything I want with it (accept copy it and try to sell the copies). If somebody improves upon the product and announces something new, my updating my copy if possible is not infringement upon the original patent (although it could be a violation of patents on the new product). This should ease the heart of the original poster, but maybe not those who do (as I once did) copy every album they can get their hands on. It is (probably) ok to modify ROMs in order to try to make your system work (that is why you bought in the first place). Just don't steal somebody elses ROMs to do it. Not dick jackson.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (12/21/85)
> I am curious as to the legality of taking a copyrighted ROM from my > own computer and making a copy of it (with changes) and then using this > new ROM in my computer (I had to do this to support an oddball disk on > my IBM PC/AT). Did I do anything illegal (Egad!). What if a friend > who also owns a copy of the original ROM wants a copy of the new ROM. > Can I give him one? > > Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 922-1134 "The Copyright Book" by William S. Strong (The MIT Press) is an excellent explanation of copyright law for the lay person. According to Strong, copyright law permits an owner of a computer program to make object code copies of it for his or her own use. One is not allowed to transfer the copy to another person unless one also transfers ones rights in the original program. One is allowed to make backup copies of a program, as long as one destroys those copies when he or she loses the rights to the program. If you make mods to an IBM ROM, you are making a derivative work. The law doesn't consider derivative works to be entirely new. The only extra right you gain from a derivative work is copyright on the portion that you contributed. IBM still has copyright on their contribution to your modified ROM, and you would need their permission to give it or a copy to a friend. I really recommend Strong's book. He is a good writer who makes fine distinctions seem easy and sensible. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/21/85)
> Copyrights very closely parallel patents. If I buy a patented product, once > I've got it I can do just about anything I want with it (accept copy it and > try to sell the copies). If somebody improves upon the product and announces > something new, my updating my copy if possible is not infringement upon the > original patent (although it could be a violation of patents on the new > product). Well not quite. A copyright on a work is the ability to prevent others from copying it. Thus if you write a song and copyright it and I write the same song, you have no claim against me unless I heard your song and therefore copied it. If you cannot give any evidence that I ever heard or saw your song, then you're out of luck. On the other hand, a patent on a device gives you the ability to prevent any others from building such a device, whether they came up with the same idea independently or not. You do not have to prove that someone else saw your idea and copied it.
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/21/85)
> Isn't there a 'fair use' provision in the copyright law? > (For example archival backup copies of computer software (like LOTUS 1-2-3) > are generally OK, (except in Illinois, apparently)). > IBM would be generating bad publicity if they sued a poor fellow who > needed to modify their ROM just to get his PC to work. > This is like a public-domain patch to WordStar, in my opinion. It is my sincere belief that the concept of "fair use" was thrown out when the copyright law was rewritten in 1968. And as for making archival backup copies of computer software: no you can't do it legally unless the your agreement with the vendor gives you permission. (IBM's standard software license agreement explicitly allows you to "copy the program into any machine readable or printed form for backup or modification purposes in support of your use of the program on [a] single machine." Perhaps this policy applies to ROMs also. In that case, it's OK for you to copy it for modification purposes, but not because you have any legal right to do so.
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (12/23/85)
In IBM's own publication "Copyright Instructions," page 3: Customer Copying and Modification: As noted herein before, the Customer is not free to print, copy or display the licensed program materials, except as expressely provided in the Agreement for IBM Licensed Programs. However the customer may copy materials in machine readable form to the extent indicated in the License section of the Agreement for IBM Licensed Programs and which reads in part as follows: Each license granted under this Agreement authorizes the Customer to-- copy the licensed program materials in machine readable form into any machine readable or printed form to provide sufficient copies to support the Customer's use of the licensed program as authorized under this Agreement. Licensed program materials provided by IBM in printed form may not be copied. Additional copies may be obtained under license from IBM at the charges then in effect. Modification of licensed program materials is permitted in the Permission to Modify section which reads as follows: The Customer may modify any licensed program materials in machine readable form and/or merge such materials into other program material to form an updated work for the Customer's own use; provided that, upon discontinuance of the licensed program, the licensed program materials will be completely removed from the updated work and dealt with under this Agreement as if permission to modify or merge had never been granted. Any portion of the licensed program materials included in such an updated work will condinue to be subject to all terms of this Agreement. ------------------------------------------------------------ Essentially, IBM lets individual users copy and modify their programs for their own use. However, you can't give away copies of the modified code any more than you can give away copies of the unmodified code, regardless of whether someone else was licensed for it. However your friend could come over to your rom burner and copy and modify his copy of the code on his own behalf. -Ron
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (12/25/85)
> > It is my sincere belief that the concept of "fair use" was thrown out > when the copyright law was rewritten in 1968. According to William Strong in "The Copyright Book", fair use is included in the new copyright law, which went into effect in 1978. > > And as for making archival backup copies of computer software: no you can't > do it legally unless the your agreement with the vendor gives you permission. According to Strong, ownership of a copyrighted program gives one the right to make backups. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff