mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (03/31/89)
In this week's ComputerWorld, and interesting article made the front page.
Because of a unintended consequence of the 11th Amendment of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court has ruled that state agencies and universities are not bound
to honor copyrights -- in other words, they can copy at will. (This is not
an April Fools' joke...)
This decision resulted because of a case by an engineering software
company against UCLA, who was accused of copying 3 copies of the software
and 10 copies of the manuals for each copy that they purchased.
Needless to say, the software industry is very concerned about this development.
They are currently lobbying the Congress to pass a law closing this loophole.
Discussing is slated to begin on May 17. Currently passage of the proposed bill
is expected.
Now does this mean that any copying done before then is exempt, since after-the-
fact legislation is frowned upon? If this is the case, there will be much
copying until May 17...
-Michael
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (03/31/89)
>Now does this mean that any copying done before then is exempt, since >after-the- >fact legislation is frowned upon? If this is the case, there will be much "frowned upon" ???? The Constitution specifically prohibits retroactive application of laws. >copying until May 17... IF the notion is that the Constitution limits state liability for copyright violation, then a simple act of Congress may not be sufficient to alter the situation (Congress can't rewrite the Constitution by itself). HOWEVER, before anyone working for a <state> university gets carried away, the fact that a state may not be REQUIRED to honor copyright (means essentially that copyright holders are unable to prosecute under FEDERAL law), many (most?) states have taken the official position that they will not violate copyright (Connecticut I KNOW has done so). Hence, if you disregard copyright you may yet find there are applicable state civil and administrative penalties as unpleasant as civil penalties provided under Federal copyright acts (quite apart from the moral fallacy in assuming anyone is free to commit any act that isn't strictly illegal). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) According to the American Facsimile Association, more than half the calls from Japan to the U.S. are fax calls. FAX it to me at: 1-203-486-5246
mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (03/31/89)
In article <6408@bsu-cs.UUCP>, mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: > In this week's ComputerWorld, and interesting article made the front page. > Because of a unintended consequence of the 11th Amendment of the Constitution, > the Supreme Court has ruled that state agencies and universities are not bound > to honor copyrights -- in other words, they can copy at will. (This is not > an April Fools' joke...) Just as a little clarification, here is a copy of a message that I sent out to Mr. Sewall about my posting. I think this will shead a little more light on what this actually involves. (Yes, I even did a little research on this one :-) ) I don't know why this loophole exists -- ComputerWorld doesn't seem too "legally inclined", but what do you expect from a computer magazine. I agree that everyone at state universities should not run out and start copying software. As far as that goes, universities should show their students a model of good ethics. If THIS university started making copies of all of its software, I would think even less of it than I do now (since they tend to make copies anyway, just not in abundance). The eleventh amendment states as follows: The Judicial power of the Unites States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. This to me means that piracy is still illegal; you just can't enforce this law in a US court. The way to get around this loophole: pass a law that gives enforcement rights to someone other than the US courts, like the Department of Commerce maybe (or maybe that doesn't fit into their realm -- I'm no expert on that either. Technically, I believe that a law that is not enforceable in a particular case is void in that particular case, meaning that it is no longer illegal. But no law anywhere has ever defined what ethical and moral behaviour is, so I wouldn't count on these redeeming qualities to hold people back... -Michael Niehaus -- Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)
russotto@wam.UMD.EDU (04/21/89)
In article <113300058@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> trd10523@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >I personally don't think they should close the loophole. After all, each >computer is not buying the program - the school is. It's not practical for >the school to pay hundreds of dollars TIMES the number of computer they own. >This fact is keeping the cost of tuition high and the number of computers low. >If the school (or other institution) has that large of a software budget, >I'd rather see them buy more different programs than pay repeatedly for one. > >(And yes, I know I'm going to get flak from those on the other side of the >fence - mainly, the members of the software industry. I know that authors >should be paid for their work, and I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't think >any one consumer should pay for a program more than once.) > >Todd Davis >Student, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >trd10523@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu >Disclaimer: They're my ideas, not UIUC's. We welcome replies to this editorial. You overstate your case. Schools can, (and should, in my opinion as a programmer), buy a site license, which costs significantly less than price*number of machines. By your logic, GTE could buy one copy of a software program, and the ENTIRE ORGANIZATION could use it for the same as the individual price. Software is generally sold per simultaneously running copy-- If I buy a program, I can generally use it on any number of different machines, but only one at a time. -- DISCLAIMER: Not only does the University not share my opinions, they don't want me sharing my opinions. "This 'Pnews', what does it do?" Matthew T. Russotto russotto@wam.umd.edu
blochowi@cat28.CS.WISC.EDU (Jason Blochowiak) (04/21/89)
In article <113300058@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> trd10523@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > [He states that he thinks the existing loophole should NOT be closed] > >(And yes, I know I'm going to get flak from those on the other side of the >fence - mainly, the members of the software industry. I know that authors >should be paid for their work, and I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't think >any one consumer should pay for a program more than once.) > One consumer? You mean, if a university buys a program, only one person will use said program? This is news to me... The way I'd like my software to be treated (unless I specify otherwise) is like a book: One person uses it at a time, and it may be lent to someone else, but that's it. Having more than one person use a program at once is what site licenses are for. It seems that quite a few people don't realize that software should be considered part of the cost of a computer! I don't know of very many (marginally intelligent) people who would buy a car without figuring gas costs into their finances... One thing (not directly related to what you said): Is it just me, or is the "well, the recording industry has survived pirating, so the software industry should be able to" a load of crap? I don't have figures in front of me, but it would seem that the number of people with something to play music on greatly outnumbers the number of people with computers (and if you have a fairly normal form of the music [cassette, vinyl, CD], it'll work on any player). And, of course, volume is necessary to absorb theft (without high margin per legitimate copy sold, right Mr. Sewall?). I don't plan on getting rich programming, but I have a really nasty habit called eating... (And I don't even eat that much!) >Todd Davis >Student, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >trd10523@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu >Disclaimer: They're my ideas, not UIUC's. We welcome replies to this editorial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Blochowiak (blochowi@garfield.cs.wisc.edu) "Not your average iconoclast..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------