woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (05/03/91)
[ NOTE: I (Greg A. Woods <woods@robohack> & <woods@eci386>) am not a lawyer. ] [ Also note: followup-to misc.legal, which I don't read, so further arguments to me by e-mail please.... ] In article <PBX8114w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: > woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: > > In article <1991Apr22.192306.29134@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Te > > > [stuff about not being allowed to compile a shareware programme > > > distributed via Usenet.] > > > > Brad, if you send me a free copy of a book, I can do any number of > > things with it while steadfastly holding to the Copyright Act. [...] > > it in any work of my own. I can totally destroy it. I can photocopy > > it and put the original away for safe-keeping. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > No you can't. That's breaking copyright law, and is explicitly prohibited in > the copyright notices on most books. You know, the bit which says "No part of > this publication may be reproduced [...] in any form or by any means [...] > photocopying [...] or otherwise." Ooops.... I bent the "book" analogy a bit far there. W.r.t. computer programmes in particular, Section 27 "Infringement of Copyright" of the Copyright Act by which I am governed (and Brad too) reads: 2. Acts not constituting infringement of Copyright. .... (l) the making by a person who owns a copy of a computer programme, which copy is authorized by the owner of the copyright, of a single reproduction of the copy by adapting, modifying, or converting the computer programme or translating it into another computer language if the person proves that: (i) the reproduction is essential for the compatibility of the computer programme with a particular computer, (ii) the reproduction is solely for the person's own use, and (iii) the reproduction is destroyed forthwith when the person ceases to be the owner of the copy of the computer programme; [R.S., c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 5.] Now, without going into all the sub-references of all other relevant sections, and without spewing forth great mounds of legal verbiage, this means I can compile (and use) a shareware programme delivered to me via Usenet without infringing upon the Copyright of said programme. Mind you, to follow the letter of the law, I would have to remove all intermediate object files upon creation of the final binary programme. Also, this means you cannot make functional changes in a programme without infringing upon the Moral Rights of the copyright holder. To allow modifications, even of freely distributable software, the copyright holder must specifically waive his rights by specifying something to the effect of "modifications are allowed provided they are clearly identified and this notice remains intact". As for retribution, the Act specifically (in S.35(1)) allows for "damages that may be suffered due to infringement, and in addition thereto such part of the profits that the infringer has made from the infringement as the court may decide to be just and proper". Any shareware author who publishes on Usenet would have a hard time justifying to a court any "damages suffered"! As for identifying copies vs. originals, this concept cannot apply to computer programmes, since a copy, by definition, is, in every way, identical to the original. One final sticky point w.r.t. computer programmes, is that they often consist of collections of files. Files, unlike chapters of a book, are distinct entities. I would suggest the practise of placing a copyright notice in every file is essential. I would also suggest that an archive (eg. a shar) is essentially just another way of representing a collection of files, and that it does not in any way construe that the files contained therein are not still seperate entities. The very nature of files and file-systems implies a hierarchical representation (which has nothing to do with directories, etc.) > > I can give away the > > photocopy and destroy the original. > > You can't do that, either. "This book is sold subject to the condition that > it shall not [...be...] circulated [...] in any form of binding or cover > other than that in which it is published." The notice you quote is "bogus" w.r.t. the Copyright Act. One could possible construe that turning the book into a photocopy is changing the physical means by which a work is exposed, but I don't think you'd get too far with a Moral Rights Infringement case. I'm not even sure a License to publish a book can bind the third party purchaser of the book. What does bind the third party is infringement of the Copyright as defined by the Act itself. As for computer programmes, since translation is accepted, I believe my statement to be true. This is similar in concept to vendors including freeware binaries, but not sources, in distributions. (Note I'm *NOT* referring to GNU-ware.) > > Shareware, as distributed across Usenet, cannot exist in practice, > > since the "license" it is shipped with is un-enforceable. > > In what sense? It has already been enforced on occasion -- I have read that > companies have been forced to pay up for shareware they have copied -- so > your claim that it is "unenforcable" is curious. Since posting shareware to Usenet can be deemed as publishing, and since I don't have to agree to any such license before I receive a legal copy, the license is un-enforceable. > > I would say > > it is even more useless than the average shrink-wrap "license", since > > there is no way you can make me read the license before I read the > > file in my spool directory, thus I can have (i.e. own) a copy before I > > agree to the license. > > You have to own a copy of a textual representation of the file. However, > before you get the program you must voluntarily uudecode and uncompress it. > In the case of much PC shareware, the uncompress process displays a banner > message proclaiming that the program is shareware and telling you to consult > the license before running it. We're not talking about PC shareware here, but rather "shareware" as distributed across Usenet... Besides, the rules quoted above make cancel out your argument..... > > Also, be careful when you say "complete control over copying of the > > work". What this really means is "complete control over profiting > > from the work". > > No, because even not-for-profit distribution of the work can be controlled. > You can't post copies of Microsoft software to the net just because you're > not personally making a profit by doing so; and you can't make copies of the > telephone directory and sell them just because the telephone company doesn't > try to make a profit on them. No, not-for-profit distribution cannot easily be controlled, especially the not-for-profit distribution of one legally owned copy of a book or programme. However, the Moral Rights of the author can be enforced, which is how they get you if you post copies of someone's software without the proper rights. The phone-book is another story that others know better the facts on than I. > Are you sure you're up-to-date with your copyright law? Your references to > "the Copyright Act" leave me in doubt. Absolutely.... I have just been re-reading "The Copyright Act and Regulations -- An Office Consolidation -- 1990 Edition", by Butterworths Canada Ltd. It contains the amended text of the Copyright Act (of Canada) [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42]. I don't claim to be an expert on it though.... Also note I have not delved into any case law that may apply. I can read, and English is my first (and for the most part only) language, and thus legalese is, to me, sort of an oxymoron.... Jargon is jargon, but it's all still English. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) (05/04/91)
<1991May2.180616.26542@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes: >[ NOTE: I (Greg A. Woods <woods@robohack> & <woods@eci386>) am not a lawyer. ] [ Nor am I ] >[ Also note: followup-to misc.legal, which I don't read, so further >arguments to me by e-mail please.... ] [ We don't get misc.legal, so I'm prolonging the agony of alt.sources.d a bit... ] >W.r.t. computer programmes in particular, Section 27 "Infringement of >Copyright" of the Copyright Act by which I am governed (and Brad too) >reads: > 2. Acts not constituting infringement of Copyright. > .... > (l) the making by a person who owns a copy of a computer ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > programme, which copy is authorized by the owner of the ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > copyright, of a single reproduction of the copy by adapting, ^^^^^^^^^ > modifying, or converting the computer programme or translating > it into another computer language if the person proves that: > (i) the reproduction is essential for the > compatibility of the computer programme with a > particular computer, > (ii) the reproduction is solely for the person's own > use, and > (iii) the reproduction is destroyed forthwith when the > person ceases to be the owner of the copy of the > computer programme; [R.S., c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 5.] Now, a person who receives a copy of a shareware program via Usenet probably owns the file. However, I have severe doubts whether he can claim that the copy he owns "is authorized by the owner of the copyright" -- especially when the program explicitly states that it may not be kept beyond the trial period and when he has kept it beyond that time; in other words, when the program explicitly states that his ownership of the copy is NOT authorized by the copyright owner. (That is, he must agree to certain conditions before the copyright owner will authorize his owning the copy.) It is my understanding that the act of voluntarily broadcasting something does not automatically render it the possession of the receiver, and does not imply authorization from the copyright owner of the receiver's copy. Nor does the fact that someone has an illegal copy of some piece of software mean that that person is entitled to keep the copy. We might consider the shareware author as causing his copyright to be broken by sending his program out over Usenet; I do not believe, however, that those people owning the resulting illegal copies would be legally entitled to keep them. It is possible that by causing his copyright to be broken, the shareware author could be considered to have permanently waived his rights to control copying of the software -- is this the case? I do not believe that it is. For example, when you broadcast a TV program, the copy a person receives is not the property of that person; he is not allowed to tape it and keep the tape copy indefinitely, nor to sell the tape copy to other people. Similarly, I believe that if you manage to receive cable or satellite TV broadcasts which you have not paid for, you are *not* the owner of the programmes received, nor are any copies of those programs which you keep authorized. This is in spite of the fact that the cable TV company *knows* that there exist people who will obtain copies of their programmes without being authorized by them to do so. So it is *possible* that, by broadcasting his program over Usenet in such a way that he *knows* copies will end up on many machines, the author is in some way implicitly waiving his rights to retain copyright on those copies. But I doubt it. And if he has copyright, he can stop you from copying the program further. He can try to get the original copyright breach put right. Retroactively, if need be. (The original breach being the one by which you obtained your copy without agreeing to the license agreements. Yes, he caused it, but I believe he can still try to get it put right.) Part of the problem, once again, is whether Usenet counts as a broadcasting medium, a set of publishing companies, or some combination of the two. >Now, without going into all the sub-references of all other relevant >sections, and without spewing forth great mounds of legal verbiage, >this means I can compile (and use) a shareware programme delivered to >me via Usenet without infringing upon the Copyright of said >programme. Only if you own the program and the ownership is authorized by the copyright owner. And in the case of shareware, ownership in general is explicitly NOT authorized by the copyright owner. [ Looking at the above, it's a bit of a mess. It seems pretty clear to me, but it's last thing on Friday. I think I'll go and check some books on copyright law again tomorrow. In the mean time... ] Let's try to throw aside some of the legal uncertainty. I originally stepped into the debate because I want to see shareware on the net, and I want to be able to post things which I write without losing copyright control over them. I propose that a poll be taken to determine how many Usenet readers object to shareware and copyrighted software, and how many do not. We should then separate the PD-only people from the shareware-copyrighted-and-PD people, with the largest side getting to keep the existing named newsgroups and the other side having to start new groups. Accepting a feed of a shareware-or-copyrighted sources / binaries group would then be considered an informal agreement to either obey the license agreement / copyright restrictions for each program or delete that program. I suspect that the PD-only people would end up with a lot less software coming their way (no GNUware for starters!), but that's their choice. Comments? [ I suppose I'd better justify my lumping shareware with copyrighted GNU-type software. In both cases, the legalese is a copyright notice saying "This program may be copied only if you obey the following conditions:"; the difference is what the conditions are. Just as you do not agree to shareware conditions before receiving shareware, so you do not sign any contract with the FSF before receiving GNUware. Those who refuse to obey notices on shareware presumably feel no innate compulsion to obey similar notices on GNUware. ] [ It will probably be time to cross-post this thread to gnu.misc.discuss soon. ] mathew -- mathew - mathew@mantis.co.uk or mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Gardner) (05/05/91)
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: >For example, when you broadcast a TV program, the copy a person receives is >not the property of that person; he is not allowed to tape it and keep the >tape copy indefinitely, nor to sell the tape copy to other people. I agree with your direction, but your examles are faulty. The courts have ruled that "time-shifting" with your VCR is legal, and there is no time limit on how long you can keep the tapes. You cannot however, sell them, copy them or otherwise make money off of them. Maybe a better analogy would be people sending things to me in the mail unsolicited. If I get something in the mail without requesting it, then it is MINE, free. Does the process of connecting to Usenet and receiving these newsfiles constitute solicitation of material? If so, then you must abide by the requirements of the sender. If not, then it's yours to keep, but not sell, duplicate etc. >Part of the problem, once again, is whether Usenet counts as a broadcasting >medium, a set of publishing companies, or some combination of the two. Many news organizations deliver copy through a very similar arrangment, yet retain copywrights on the material. >Let's try to throw aside some of the legal uncertainty. I originally stepped >into the debate because I want to see shareware on the net, and I want to be >able to post things which I write without losing copyright control over them. For sure! >I propose that a poll be taken to determine how many Usenet readers object to >shareware and copyrighted software, and how many do not. We should then >separate the PD-only people from the shareware-copyrighted-and-PD people, >with the largest side getting to keep the existing named newsgroups and the >other side having to start new groups. >Accepting a feed of a shareware-or-copyrighted sources / binaries group would >then be considered an informal agreement to either obey the license >agreement / copyright restrictions for each program or delete that program. Just doit! mgg
thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) (05/06/91)
In article <4RuD24w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: ><1991May2.180616.26542@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes: >>W.r.t. computer programmes in particular, Section 27 "Infringement of >>Copyright" of the Copyright Act by which I am governed (and Brad too) >>reads: >> 2. Acts not constituting infringement of Copyright. >> .... >> (l) the making by a person who owns a copy of a computer > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> programme, which copy is authorized by the owner of the > ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> copyright, of a single reproduction of the copy by adapting, > ^^^^^^^^^ >> modifying, or converting the computer programme or translating >> it into another computer language if the person proves that: >> (i) the reproduction is essential for the >> compatibility of the computer programme with a >> particular computer, >> (ii) the reproduction is solely for the person's own >> use, and >> (iii) the reproduction is destroyed forthwith when the >> person ceases to be the owner of the copy of the >> computer programme; [R.S., c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 5.] > > >However, I have severe doubts whether he can claim that the copy he owns "is >authorized by the owner of the copyright" -- especially when the program >explicitly states that it may not be kept beyond the trial period and when he >has kept it beyond that time; in other words, when the program explicitly >states that his ownership of the copy is NOT authorized by the copyright >owner. (That is, he must agree to certain conditions before the copyright >owner will authorize his owning the copy.) > I think you have misread the statute. It does not require that "ownership of the copy" be authorized, but that the copy be authorized. That is, the copy must have been created with the consent of the copyright holder. Once it is created, the copyright holder has no special rights to dictate who may or may not own the copy. Copyright does not give the holder control over who owns the copies, just over their creation. -- Brian Thomson, CSRI Univ. of Toronto utcsri!uthub!thomson, thomson@hub.toronto.edu
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (05/07/91)
[ Oh well, the discussion continues.... Please, anyone thinking of responding, read the relevant laws first. I'm basing this discussion on the Canadian Copyright Act, since that is what governs me, and Mr. Brad Templeton, who started this whole thing! :-) ] In article <4RuD24w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: > Now, a person who receives a copy of a shareware program via Usenet probably > owns the file. > > However, I have severe doubts whether he can claim that the copy he owns "is > authorized by the owner of the copyright" -- especially when the program > explicitly states that it may not be kept beyond the trial period and when he > has kept it beyond that time; in other words, when the program explicitly > states that his ownership of the copy is NOT authorized by the copyright > owner. (That is, he must agree to certain conditions before the copyright > owner will authorize his owning the copy.) > > It is my understanding that the act of voluntarily broadcasting something > does not automatically render it the possession of the receiver, and does not > imply authorization from the copyright owner of the receiver's copy. It is very clear in the Canadian Copyright Act that broadcasting has a very narrow definition w.r.t. copyrights, and almost certainly Usenet is not a broadcast medium (notwithstanding any case law which may have come to pass). By implication, posting to Usenet is equivalent to publishing, thus once a copy of a programme has come into someone's possession via Usenet as the distribution mechanism, that person has become the legal owner of the copy he holds, i.e. "is authorized by the owner of the copyright" to have a copy of the programme, and is thus entitled to do anything to this copy, within the bounds of the Copyright Act. What the programme, or any attached notice, says or does not say is not relevant. If the copyright holder does not wish copies to be distributed beyond his control, he must either explicitly restrict such copying (by enforcing his copyright), or explicitly license each copy. Shareware tries to put a minor loophole in this by having the licence say that the authorized owner of a copy is allowed to distribute further copies, provided he executes the licence with each new owner. The licensee's are usually also required to either pay some fee to the copyright holder, or to destroy their copies after some given period. The licensee's are usually also restricted from profiting from such transactions. > Nor does the fact that someone has an illegal copy of some piece of software > mean that that person is entitled to keep the copy. We might consider the > shareware author as causing his copyright to be broken by sending his program > out over Usenet; I do not believe, however, that those people owning the > resulting illegal copies would be legally entitled to keep them. It is > possible that by causing his copyright to be broken, the shareware author > could be considered to have permanently waived his rights to control copying > of the software -- is this the case? I do not believe that it is. Ignoring the fact that a copy from Usenet is not an illegal copy... It is the responsibility of the copyright holder to take action to retrieve any possible illegal copies of his work. No, the copyright is not necessarily broken by distribution of the work over Usenet. The resulting copies are *not* illegal either. Shareware, by definition, depends upon a licence. Such a licence cannot be upheld when the copies are distributed via Usenet. One point to note however is that given the tenuous definition of Usenet, particularly of the size and scope of Usenet, software distributed via Usenet can probably be considered to automatically have something like the following waiver attached: "Further copying is allowed, provided this notice remains intact." I.e. the copyright holder is unlikely to be able to enforce his copyright to the extent that further original copies, beyond the normal distribution of Usenet are not allowed. Especially considering the function of automatic archive sites.... > For example, when you broadcast a TV program, the copy a person receives is > not the property of that person; he is not allowed to tape it and keep the > tape copy indefinitely, nor to sell the tape copy to other people. As has been mentioned, at least in Canada and the U.S.A., the a copy of a TV programme as recorded by a private individual *is* permitted to be kept indefinitely (and can be viewed as often as desired, but cannot be viewed for profit). > So it is *possible* that, by broadcasting his program over Usenet in such a > way that he *knows* copies will end up on many machines, the author is in > some way implicitly waiving his rights to retain copyright on those copies. > But I doubt it. No, he is not waiving his rights to his copyright, but rather voiding any licence he may have hoped to enforce. Distribution over Usenet is not broadcasting by definition (notwithstanding any case law which may have come to pass). > And if he has copyright, he can stop you from copying the program further. He > can try to get the original copyright breach put right. Retroactively, if > need be. (The original breach being the one by which you obtained your copy > without agreeing to the license agreements. Yes, he caused it, but I believe > he can still try to get it put right.) Yes, the copyright does indeed remain. No, any licence is void. > Part of the problem, once again, is whether Usenet counts as a broadcasting > medium, a set of publishing companies, or some combination of the two. No, Usenet does not count as a broadcast medium within the definitions of the Canadian Copyright Act (notwithstanding any case law which may have come to pass). > Let's try to throw aside some of the legal uncertainty. I originally stepped > into the debate because I want to see shareware on the net, and I want to be > able to post things which I write without losing copyright control over them. I don't care if shareware is distributed via Usenet or not. All I'm trying to say is that you (or the shareware licence holder) best not expect any money from Usenet users, since there is no way they can enforce their licence, and if my earlier assertion proved true, they could not completely control further copying either. > I propose that a poll be taken to determine how many Usenet readers object to > shareware and copyrighted software, and how many do not. We should then > separate the PD-only people from the shareware-copyrighted-and-PD people, > with the largest side getting to keep the existing named newsgroups and the > other side having to start new groups. A I said, I don't care about shareware.... As for software protected by copyright, most of what comes over Usenet is, and probably always will be, at least to some extent, and I'm all for it. The PD-only people have always been in a void [:-)]. As for creating, splitting, separating, etc. newsgroups, forget it. Sure you can create an alt.sources.pd, or an alt.sources.shareware, but some fat lot of good it will do. The existing newsgroups are well accepted. > [ I suppose I'd better justify my lumping shareware with copyrighted GNU-type > software. In both cases, the legalese is a copyright notice saying "This > program may be copied only if you obey the following conditions:"; the > difference is what the conditions are. As someone eloquently said (and I paraphrase much less eloquently) -- You can't further restrict other's rights with a copyright, beyond what copyright legislation allows for; rather you can only waive your own rights as copyright holder, eg. by saying such things as "Further copying is allowed, provided this notice remains intact, and all changes are clearly marked." I won't even touch the relative merits of the GNU Copyright/Licence! -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May7.000512.1961@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: > Shareware, by definition, depends upon a licence. Not necessarily. ``This is Fubar version 6.66, Copyright 1991, Me. I own a copyright on Fubar. This means you basically can't make copies of it without getting my permission first. Well, I give you permission to make one copy and give it to someone else, PROVIDED that you first send a $15.00 check or money order, made payable to Fubar Inc., by registered U.S. or international mail to Natas, 666 Penn. Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20666. Unless you indicate otherwise, I'll send you manuals and update notices after I get your check. Thanks. Once you own a legal copy, by the way, you can use it for as long as you want. You have to send me one $15.00 check for each copy you give away, though. (If you're smart, you'll get the money from each recipient.)'' That's not a license. It's just a copyright limitation, and it's legally sound. I'd still say that Fubar 6.66 is shareware. ---Dan
) (05/07/91)
gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Gardner) writes: > I agree with your direction, but your examles are faulty. The courts have > ruled that "time-shifting" with your VCR is legal, and there is no time > limit on how long you can keep the tapes. In America, perhaps. Yet another transatlantic legal difference. > Maybe a better analogy would be people sending things to me in the mail > unsolicited. If I get something in the mail without requesting it, then > it is MINE, free. Does the process of connecting to Usenet and receiving > these newsfiles constitute solicitation of material? If so, then you > must abide by the requirements of the sender. If not, then it's yours to > keep, but not sell, duplicate etc. I think that's fair enough; and I would argue that connecting to Usenet DOES constitute solicitation of material, since you must explicitly request from your feed site that the material in any given newsgroup be sent to you. mathew
) (05/07/91)
thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) writes: > In article <4RuD24w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: > ><1991May2.180616.26542@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes > >> 2. Acts not constituting infringement of Copyright. > >> .... > >> (l) the making by a person who owns a copy of a computer > >> programme, which copy is authorized by the owner of the > >> copyright, [...] [...] > I think you have misread the statute. > It does not require that "ownership of the copy" be authorized, but that > the copy be authorized. > That is, the copy must have been created with the consent of the copyright > holder. Right. And the copyright holder is stating that he does not give consent to copies being made unless the person to whom the copies are given agrees to abide by the conditions of ownership. mathew
gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu (root@research.bdi.com (Systems Research Supervisor)) (05/08/91)
In article <qLTk212w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: => =>Right. And the copyright holder is stating that he does not give consent to =>copies being made unless the person to whom the copies are given agrees to =>abide by the conditions of ownership. => But if a copyright holder posts the copyrighted work, he implicitly authorizes copies to be made on every site receiving the particular group, given the automated nature of news feeds. Further copying may be restricted by the terms of the copyright, but it can't dictate the fair use of the implicitly authorized copies. This doesn't deal with the issue of having a third party post the work. It might be wise to include a clause in the copyright notice preventing broadcast (implicit or explicit) of the work. Disclaimer: This isn't law (to the best of my knowledge), but I think my statements are sensible, and reflect what I think the law should be. As it is, I think I like being a hacker more than I would like being a lawyer. => =>mathew => Gary Duzan Time Lord Third Regeneration -- gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu _o_ ---------------------- _o_ [|o o|] Two CPU's are better than one; N CPU's would be real nice. [|o o|] |_o_| Disclaimer: I AM Brain Dead Innovations, Inc. |_o_|
thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) (05/08/91)
One more round! In article <qLTk212w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: >thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) writes: >> In article <4RuD24w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: >> ><1991May2.180616.26542@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes >> >> 2. Acts not constituting infringement of Copyright. >> >> .... >> >> (l) the making by a person who owns a copy of a computer >> >> programme, which copy is authorized by the owner of the >> >> copyright, [...] >[...] >> I think you have misread the statute. >> It does not require that "ownership of the copy" be authorized, but that >> the copy be authorized. >> That is, the copy must have been created with the consent of the copyright >> holder. > >Right. And the copyright holder is stating that he does not give consent to >copies being made unless the person to whom the copies are given agrees to >abide by the conditions of ownership. Except that, by the time the copy is received, the copy has already been made. Posting something to the network is like putting a sheet of paper in a photocopier and pushing the "ON" button. If the person who posts does so with the consent of the copyright holder, then the copy is authorized. Once that question is settled, the copyright holder has no more control (none based on copyright, at least) on what happens to the copy, except regarding its further duplication. [of course, this may differ in the UK] I have no idea of the effect of arbitrary conditions on that authorization, but I strongly suspect that, if copyright is the basis for enforcing such conditions, the copyright holder would have a case against the poster rather than the eventual possessor. Confusion arises as a result of the common practice of following a copyright notice with a statement that "Use of this product is hereby permitted under the following conditions ...", which gives the impression that the copyright and usage conditions are somehow related. I do not believe they are. But then ... I am not a lawyer and mine is not a competent legal opinion. -- Brian Thomson, CSRI Univ. of Toronto utcsri!uthub!thomson, thomson@hub.toronto.edu
) (05/08/91)
mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: >I think that's fair enough; and I would argue that connecting to Usenet DOES >constitute solicitation of material, since you must explicitly request from >your feed site that the material in any given newsgroup be sent to you. Yet another transatlantic difference. Over here, it is not uncommon for feed sites to offer new newsgroups until you ask them to shut you off. But then again, we don't have the UnKindNET telling us what to do...
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (05/08/91)
In article <qeTk211w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: > I would argue that connecting to Usenet DOES > constitute solicitation of material, since you must explicitly request from > your feed site that the material in any given newsgroup be sent to you. Getting a USENET feed is just like getting a mailbox. You have not solicited the individual items that come to your mailbox, and if someone decides to send you junk mail, it's yours to keep. ---Dan
) (05/08/91)
thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) writes: > If the person who posts > does so with the consent of the copyright holder, then the copy is > authorized. Once that question is settled, the copyright holder has no > more control (none based on copyright, at least) on what happens to the > copy, except regarding its further duplication. [of course, this may > differ in the UK] Yes, but does uudecoding and uncompressing count as further duplication? You have, after all, made an extra copy of the program by doing so. mathew
) (05/08/91)
gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu (root@research.bdi.com (Systems Research Supervisor)) writes: > But if a copyright holder posts the copyrighted work, he implicitly > authorizes copies to be made on every site receiving the particular > group, given the automated nature of news feeds. Further copying may > be restricted by the terms of the copyright, but it can't dictate the > fair use of the implicitly authorized copies. Right. But what is "fair use" for a news article? Reading it, yes; but decoding it to obtain a program? mathew
igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) (05/08/91)
In article <3460@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (CNEWS MUST LIVE!) writes: > mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: > >I think that's fair enough; and I would argue that connecting to Usenet DOES > >constitute solicitation of material, since you must explicitly request from > >your feed site that the material in any given newsgroup be sent to you. > > Yet another transatlantic difference. Over here, it is not uncommon for > feed sites to offer new newsgroups until you ask them to shut you off. > But then again, we don't have the UnKindNET telling us what to do... Rubbish. If you have a feed which contains !whatever for the groups you DON'T want, then you will get new groups; if you have a feed which just lists the groups you want, you won't. Simple. No transatlantic differences. Nothing whatsoever to do with uknet. ian
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (05/09/91)
In article <6579:May706:09:5591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > In article <1991May7.000512.1961@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: > > Shareware, by definition, depends upon a licence. > > Not necessarily. >[.... a copyright notice ....] > That's not a license. It's just a copyright limitation, and it's legally > sound. I'd still say that Fubar 6.66 is shareware. Hm... interesting point. Your wording isn't all that great, and probably contains a few loopholes, but I get the idea! :-) However, if you (the copyright holder of Fubar 6.66) were to post Fubar 6.66 to Usenet, I'd say you wouldn't be able to uphold your copyright. This is the point I was essentially trying to make. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) (05/09/91)
In article <6579:May706:09:5591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >In article <1991May7.000512.1961@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: >> Shareware, by definition, depends upon a licence. > >Not necessarily. [fine example of copyright limitations omitted] >That's not a license. It's just a copyright limitation, and it's legally >sound. I'd still say that Fubar 6.66 is shareware. I agree that what you wrote is completely valid. I'd argue that it doesn't match the goals of Shareware at all. I, Joe User, have no incentive whatsoever to pass your program on to anyone else; not only that, but Jack User, who wants a copy, won't get an "evaluation" copy to try out without paying for it. The whole idea of shareware is to distribute the program as far and wide as possible, and people who want to keep it pay for it. If they don't want to keep it, they are still encouraged to give plenty of copies to friends. Although a wonderful and grand idea, I don't think it can be made legally enforceable, at least using the current copyright laws. Since you own a legal copy of the program, you have no legal obligation to destroy it just because a time limit ran out, and it is not in the author's best interest to keep you from making a copy of the program for someone else (else that other person never gets a chance to see the program, and maybe pay for it). There is no way, under the copyright laws, to say "you may not RECEIVE a copy of this program", it can only prevent you from MAKING a copy. Once you've legally made a copy (other than the archival type copy that doesn't require permission from the author), you can pass that copy to anyone you want.