gdelong@cvbnet.UUCP (Gary Delong) (09/04/87)
In article <45000009@uicsrd>, kai@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: > > I just read the "NewsPlus" section of the A+ magazine and was shocked to read > the blurb titled "UCLA finds loopholes". > > It says that UCLA was sued by B.V. Engineering for making illegal copies of > it's programs. The judge dismissed the case because UCLA was a state > institution and therefore was not subject to federal copyright laws. This is > disturbing, and could seriously affect sales of software to any university in > the future. > > Has anyone more current information about this situation? Very interesting, makes one wonder if state institutions are protected by the copyright laws. OK you legal eagles out there, lets hear what you have to say about equal protection, etc. I'm cross posting this to misc.headlines for any discussion. -- _____ / \ / All spelling errors | Gary A. Delong, N1BIP | \ / intentional for testing | linus!raybed2!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ rn spellcorrector v1.02A. | (617) 275-1800 x5232
ekwok@cadev2 (Edward C. Kwok) (09/09/87)
In article <180@cvbnet.UUCP> gdelong@cvbnet.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes: >> >> I just read the "NewsPlus" section of the A+ magazine and was shocked to read >> the blurb titled "UCLA finds loopholes". >> >> It says that UCLA was sued by B.V. Engineering for making illegal copies of >> it's programs. The judge dismissed the case because UCLA was a state >> institution and therefore was not subject to federal copyright laws. This is >> disturbing, and could seriously affect sales of software to any university in >> the future. >> >Very interesting, makes one wonder if state institutions are protected >by the copyright laws. > >OK you legal eagles out there, lets hear what you have to say about >equal protection, etc. > Ah, two things come to mind. 1) Is there an essential state function here being regulated by the Federal Copyright laws? 2) Is this the State's deprivation of private property rights without due process of law? It seems to me that the governing law will not consider the use of pirated programs a sovereign right issue. (even National <something> v. Usury, which has been overruled, will not go as far as this, right?). The due process attack can only be defeated by a compelling state interest, which is not apparent at this instance. What is not apparent is what the statute really says. Maybe the statute expressly says that the law does not apply to state institutions, or that the fact situation falls under the "fair use" provision.