jib@prism.UUCP (05/06/86)
Legally, the copyright laws do not prohibit renting software (or anything
else protected by the copyright laws). Software manufacturers usually
include licenses which prohibit renting the product, but except in
Louisiana (which passed a law making such licenses binding on the
purchaser), the enforcability (that is, the legality) of such licenses is
not resolved.
Obviously renting software and then copying it, IS ILLEGAL. But renting
it and trying it, probably is not.
(Although I am a lawyer, the above opinions are merely my opinions and
should not be considered legal advice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Block {cca, ihnp4!inmet, mit-eddie, wjh12, datacube} !mirror!prism!jib
Mirror Systems, Inc. 2067 Massachusetts Ave.
(617) 661-0777 Cambridge, MA 02140osmigo1@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ron Morgan) (05/10/86)
Since the University of Texas is part of Apple's consortium thing (where
students and staff can buy Macs at a discount), we have been blessed with
a number of "software rental" businesses. An employee of one of these
recently told me that what actually happens is that the customer *buys* the
software at the retail price (or very close to it), then returns it within
a week, at which time the store *buys it back* as a used item at 85% of its
original price. Thus, the customer has "rented" it for 15% of the retail
price. This circumvents any question of illegalities.
Ron Morgan
"In graduate school, nobody can hear you scream."
--
osmigo1, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA: osmigo1@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo1 allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo1 gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo1
seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1 harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (05/15/86)
In article <74600001@prism> jib@prism.UUCP writes: > >Legally, the copyright laws do not prohibit renting software (or anything >else protected by the copyright laws). Software manufacturers usually >include licenses which prohibit renting the product, but except in >Louisiana (which passed a law making such licenses binding on the >purchaser), the enforcability (that is, the legality) of such licenses is >not resolved. > >Obviously renting software and then copying it, IS ILLEGAL. But renting >it and trying it, probably is not. It is interesting to note the language of different liscences. Some liscences bind the copy to the user, meaning that the user can plug the floppy into any machine he wants but can't let another person borrow it. Others bind to a one machine, meaning that you can buy one copy put it onto the computer an let a half dozen people take turns using it, but cannot pull the floppy out and put it onto another machine. A large majority do not bind to either, but instead specify one user, one machine at any given time. This prevents two users from running a multi-tasking OS and simply plugging in a second terminal. The "one,one" liscence is the easiest to enforce, but has the least restriction. There is nothing to prevent sam@oscar from giving dick@felix the only copy, or "key disk", so long as neither are using it at the same time. If dick@felix happens to pay for the privelidge of borrowing the only copy, the publisher hasn't explicitly prevented it. The best approach would be to expect, in addition to the purchase price, a percentage per "performance" of any revenue gained from that performance. Since the renter pays a fixed amount per day, even though the renter might have his computer "perform" the software several dozen times, the royalties would be the same as if he performed it only once. It will be interesting to see if publishers start asking for a percentage of revenue gained from such things as software and computer rentals and leases. This already occurs in some minicomputer software "leasing" agreements. Question: Are there any companies which market PC software on a "lease" basis (monthly or annual fee) to end users or OEMs? Are there any with "optional maintenance fees"? If so, this is very similar to "royalties". My guess is that many large companies wish to stay clear of anything even resembling "royalties", because contributing authors might decide they want some "royalties" too.
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (05/24/86)
In article <422@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: > >My guess is that many large companies wish to stay clear of anything even >resembling "royalties", because contributing authors might decide they >want some "royalties" too. In addition, royalties fall under a bad tax bracket, so lots of companies don't want anything to do with them. There were some companies here who had operated at a virtual loss for several years who found themselves with large tax bills from Uncle Sam, because all the royalties they had received were revenue, but all their expenses could not be charged against this revenue because it was royaly (or unearned income). Bummer! Pleas excuse any garbling of the legal cause and effect above. I am trying to describe the contents of several local newspaper reports. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200