wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) (02/28/86)
First off, thanks to Jordan & Lisa Breslow for that long and informative (and well-written) article on Copyright Law that came out about 10 days back. Reading it and other related net discussion inspires this query: Programmer Sam Smith writes a whiz-bang great & wonderful program. He registers it with the copyright office, includes the required copyright notices, and does everything right. Unethical person John Doe gets an electronic-format copy of Smith's program, modifies it by deleting all the copyright notices, marks it "public domain", and uploads it to a bunch of popular BBS's, naming it differently than Smith's original name and also giving the program various different names on the different BBS's. From there, naturally, hundreds of people grab copies, and some upload it to other BBS's. In a few days, there are thousands of copies of this program floating around the country, with various names, and, by now, many have already been modified or altered so they are no longer identical to the original. So, just where does Smith stand and what should he do, in practical terms? It will take extensive investigation and resources to discover and determine that John Doe was the one that originally stole the program, and it may be impossible to now locate all copies and derivatives of the original program. Should Smith just eat the injustice and give up? Or what? Will Martin
drears@ARDC.ARPA ("1LT Dennis G. Rears", FSAC) (03/03/86)
Will:
If I was Smith I would give up. If the facts could be proven he would have
an excellent lawsuit against John Doe. The problem is proving it. I would
doubt that there would be any witnesses to the actual modifications. It might
be easy to prove he sent messages with the modified program included but then
there are problems with this. Federal Rules of Evidence would not allow the
message to be admissible in court because it would not be a real copy. If I had
my copy of the rules with me I would cite the exact rule. The other problem
with this is John Doe could claim the modification was done by someone else
and sent to him. Remember the burden of proof would alway be on the plantiff.
As far as of the bullentin board operators go he would have an even more
difficult time (at least until more laws are passed depriving sysops of first
amendment rights). He would have to prove that the syops knew or should have
known copyrighted material would have passed over the network.
I think he would still retain the copyright but the cost of enforcing the
copyright would would make it unfeasibile. A copyright is only good if you
are willing to take it to court to defend against it.
Dennis
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: These are my personal views only and are not to be
confused with the views of my employer. I will not assume any liability for the
accuracy of the above comments.LOUROBINSON@SRI-AI.ARPA (03/04/86)
Kindly remove me from this distribution. Thank you. -------
drears@ARDC.ARPA ("1LT Dennis G. Rears", FSAC) (03/04/86)
Will:
I want to clarify a statement I made last time about the message not
meeting the qualifications of the federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 1001 (3)
states:
(3) Original.-....If data are stored in a computer or similiar device,
any printout or other output device readable by sight , shown to
reflect the data accurately, is an "original".
Rule 1001 (4):
(4) Duplcate.-A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same
impression as the orgininal, or from the same matrix, or by means of
photography, including enlargements and minatures, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording, or by other eqivalent techniques which
accurately reproduces the orginal.
In my opinion this would be a zerox (tm) copy of a hard copy listing of
the program NOT a hard copy of the program. Is this clear?
Rule 1002:
Rule 1002. Requirement of Original
To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the
orginial writing, recording, or photograph is required , except as
otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.
It seems to me the orginial of the message is what John Doe wrote. What he
sent out was nothing more than duplicate copies which do meet the standard of
these rules for admissibility.
Even it was admissible It would be hard to prove the data that was recieved
was not altered or even if John Doe himself sent it.
Dennis
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: This is only a opinion. I make no claim to the
accuracy of the above information.