jhenry@randvax.UUCP (Jim Henry) (11/03/86)
I have expanded the distribution to include net.legal since I think this case represents something that many have anticipated for some time and will be of interest and concern to many people outside the amiga area. I was tempted but refrained from including other micro groups. Perhaps we can summarize what develops for those groups a little later. To recap for those who are seeing this for the first time: A company which redistributes PD software for profit is distributing an adaptation of "Hack" for the Amiga. The author of the adaptation, whose name and phone number appear in the software being distributed, has contacted the company and asked them to stop distributing the software. They offered to make a business arrangement but have not done so at this time and the author is, for a number of reasons, not really interested in making a deal. The author has contacted AmigaWorld and asked them to refuse advertisements which feature "Hack". They have said they will continue to accept ads until they are shown a court order stating that the company cannot sell the program. The author's posting asked for suggestions on available remedies and listed those he was considering. I am focusing my remarks on what his legal remedies might be. Some suggestions of other remedies have been made and may well be the best course of action. The first legal step would seem to be establishing that the author does have a legal ownership of the software. This probably means a proper copyright. If he does not have a proper copyright, he may be able to remedy the copyright. There are a number of good books that cover how to secure a valid copyright. I have read and would recommend Remer's Legal Care for Your Software from Nolo Press (about $20). I believe there are a number of pre-suit steps that can be taken to let someone know you are serious about defending your copyright. I also believe that it is correct that you must undertake the defense of your own copyright. I defer to the books or to someone more knowledgeable for details here. The real crux of the legal problem as I see it is that authors who wish to make a true PD contribution, a selfless donation of software to the computing community, have no economic support to use for defense of a copyright. Is a copyright that is not being used to protect an economic position worthless? The pat answer for prevention of profiteering on PD work has been copyright. Now we have an opportunity to see if it will work. How should one defend a copyright given that there is no source of money for the defense? The only legal solution I can think of is the use of small claims court. This minimizes, but does not eliminate, the economic hardship placed on the PD copyright holder. It also prevents the PD profiteer from gaining much advantage from his economically superior position, although he still has an advantage. Would anyone care to comment on whether copyright infringement could be brought to small claims court and how it might be most effectively persued? Disclaimers: These are personal opinions. They are in no way associated with my employer, the Rand Corp. I am not an attorney and nothing contained in this message should be considered as legal advice.
ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (11/06/86)
I'm not sure that a copyright needs to be protecting financial interests.
Couldn't it simply be that an author wants to have a say in what people do
with his/her work? The GNU system is protected by a copyright stipulation
which explicitly states that you are *NOT* allowed to make money selling GNU or
a derivative work. Yuo may only charge distribution costs, and may not
interfere in *any* way with what people do with it later. (This includes
forbidding liscencing agreements, copy protection, and (I *love* this) keeping
the source code private.)
I'm sure Richard Stallman looked into the pertinent legalities, and didn't find
any problems. (Or he'd do something else (maybe charging a penny for it).)
Would anyone with more background in the subject like to comment on this?
-Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP)
"Bugs: This man page is confusing."mjwingrove@wateng.UUCP (Mike Wingrove) (11/06/86)
In article <12158@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >I'm not sure that a copyright needs to be protecting financial interests. Last night, here at U of W, there was a lecture given by a rather knowledgable lawyer on topics relating to software. Most of the lecture was related to an engineers liablility with respect to the use, and design of software, but he also spoke about software protection. During the software protection part of the talk I posed exactly the question under discussion here to him. He said "The copyright would still be valid even on a piece of freely distibutable software." Basically the copyright gives the owner the power of dictating who, and under what terms a piece of intellectual property (most commonly in written form. Canada's copyright laws don't specifically mention software YET.) can be reproduced/distributed. This means that if someone wants to copy a PD program, unless it contains a notice saying that anyone can copy it, then, theoretically, it would still be necessary to get the author's permission. Another way of stating this is that as well as a copyright notice, PD software should list the allowable terms of distribution, in addition to a copyright notice. Otherwise nobody is really alowed to copy/distribute it legally. This seemed to make good sense to me. Mike Wingrove C. C. N. G. Dept of Elec. Eng. U of Waterloo
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (11/11/86)
Could everyone *please* get the terminology correct here? Legal matters
are already confusing enough!
If something is "public domain", then there is no copyright notice, and
the author has no say whatsoever over what people do with the program.
People seem to be confusing "freely redistributable" with "public domain".
--
emordnilapanalpanama
Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706
Delphi or GEnie: mnementhjay@isis.UUCP (Jay Batson) (11/12/86)
In article <4351@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >Could everyone *please* get the terminology correct here? Legal matters >are already confusing enough! > >If something is "public domain", then there is no copyright notice, and >the author has no say whatsoever over what people do with the program. >... >-- >Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Well, Tim, I hate to be picky but you aren't even _quite_ correct. The technically legal sequence is this. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, a Copyright in a work "subsists" in the author (or assignee) _from_the_- moment_it_is_created. In other words, the moment our pudgy little fingers reel forth a program, we have a Copyright in it. Now having a Copyright means (mostly) the right to control the re-distribution, copying, selling, ..., and all means of getting the Copyrighted work out. Our right to "control" is something that we have to preserve, though, and the way we do it is by putting the world on notice that we have that right, and we do it through notices. Here's where your definition goes a bit awry. If we allow copies of the work to be distributed _without_ any notices about our ownership of our Copyright, we may be letting the work out into what we have all been calling the "public domain" - meaning you don't desire anymore to have your rights preserved, and anybody in the "public" can copy, re-distribute, sell, etc. the work without having to account to you. But _IF_ you subsequently distribute more copies _WITH_ your Copyright shown thereon, that _WON'T_ restore your Copyright rights: once the horse is out of the barn, you can't bring it back. Another important thing that your definition doesn't speak to is that the assignee/purchaser/licensee of the work may surreptitiously copy the work and give it to a third person, _without_ your Copyright notice on it. This copy is _not_ in the public domain despite the lack of the Copyright notice, and that licensee, and the third person can be held accountable to the Copyright owner. Now we can get picky, and bring up the fact that if the owner lets this copying go on and doesn't make diligent efforts to stop, this may put the work into the public domain. So mere presence/lack of a notice may not tell the whole story. The legally operative facts are whether the Copyright owner has distributed (or allowed to be distributed) copies without notice in a manner so as to evidence his election not to retain his copyright rights. Hope this confused things further. We all need more articles to read :-) -------- "Stop it!! Stop it now. This is getting silly again, and this silliness has _got_ to stop. Go on to the next sketch. Go on. Turn this camera o " Jay Batson ihnp4!onecom!\ isis!jay seismo!{hao,nbires}!/