brianb@bucsb.UUCP (Brian Bresnahan) (03/18/88)
******* FLAME ALERT ******* I hope what you were saying was a joke, if it was you can take this followup in fun. If you really meant what you said be ready for some heat. I will take the issue's presented by this being, one a time with a summary at the end. In article <800@nuchat.UUCP> phillip@nuchat.UUCP (Phillip Keen) writes: > >I've been noticing talk about pirated software lately over the net. Well, >I think it shouldn't exist, but it's something we've had for a very long time. >Well, I know it's very easy to pirate software. With computers that can do >multi-processing or multi-tasking it's very easy to do it because someone can >load up something that is playing music and then load up a copy program and >copy illegal programs. Anyways, what I think stores should do, is not let >the lookers use the computers themselves, unless the store owners and salesmen >know that person very very good. This would prevent much of the pirating that >is going on right now. You would expect people to go into a store and spent their money on software without being able to try it themselves. The only reason I use computer stores is the fact that I can try the software out, otherwise I would use mail order. Most salepersons are not knowledgeable in all the packages that the store carries and they are not going to provide you with a sufficient demonstration. When I am making a purchase decision on software weather it is a game or an application, I expect to be able to sit down and use this software, to see if I like it. I want to get an idea how long it take for commands to execute, how easy it is for me to use and to try some of the features that I am particularly interested in. I would never buy from a store that says, "You can't try it out, but I will show it to you". Maybe you would spent $300 without being able to try out a peice of software, but I most certainly would not. > I also think they should have signs on their doors >or something saying "We will take up your disks that you bring in here unless >you've got a receipt from us with you." Therefore, people would hopefully >not bring in their disks. First, why are people bringing the disks into the store in the first place, I don't think any store owner is stupid enough to not realize that someone is sitting there copying the software. If a person is bringing disks to the store, they probably are bringing them so they can test out the compatability of their data on the new software, and where those disk were purchased should have no bearing on the right to use them. I don't know where you shop for software, but people just don't open up the boxes and start using the machines, store have their own open copies which they let people use with supervision(not usually to stop them from stealing the software, but to make the sale, WHAT AN INTERESTING CONCEPT). > About pirating over the modem. Well, that is a >case that we the users don't have any control over, and if we did, because >we don't know who's pirating everyone would have to take the consequences. I >hope that it's something that won't keep us good guys (like me) who don't >pirate out of BBSes if the government or anyone makes a law or a rule saying >that we cannot use our modems. We do have control over this area, if you are on a BBS and you see a copyrighted piece of software on it, call the publisher and inform them. If you think it might be by mistake, leave a note to the sysop and inform him that you think some programs on his system are there illegally. The way to combat this area of piracy is to report the crime when you see it. The software companies and the government are going after these pirate BBS's and will be grateful for your cooperation. I am the sysop of a Bulletin Board and I am very careful to check what is uploaded to my system is public domain, I also do not allow dicussion of piracy on my system. > I think one way that we could get the pirating >issue to go over is by not allowing anyone below age 35 buy a modem. The >reason I say such a high age is I know some people between 20 and 35 that >still pirate. See, most of the piraters out there are kids between the >ages of 15 to 20. Anyways, thanks for the attention, and I just wanted to >give my little soapbox on pirating. Phillip Keen Okay moron, that's it, where do you get off saying that people under 35 pirate more than those over, if it is true, it is most likely due to the fact that more people under 35 use personal computers and you would probably find that the same percentage of users in each age group pirate. You claim that most of the pirates are between the ages of 15 and 20, while the number of people in this group who steal software is probably large, the value of what they steal is relatively low( mostly games that retail for around $40 and have no value after about a year). Where the middle age business person is taking home thousands of dollars worth of software from his workplace to use on his home machine, who is the bigger thief here. I know the retail value does not apply here, but the kid is committing a misdemenor when he steals Zork(n1), but Mr. Executive is a felon when he takes home a copy of 1-2-3(n2). They are both stealing, but all you ever hear small minded people like you talk about are those teenagers. I am 22 and I don't steal software (although I probably am capable of it), where would you classify me sir. As for the feasiblilty of your idea, it is also absurd. Would you make it illegal for anyone under 35 to own a modem or just purchase one, would you make people register their modems like handguns(whach out BOB, I think he has a smartmodem ???). How would you keep people under 35 from using modems, DATA POLICE. It is just so ridiculus !!!! Your foolish system would not allow students to have modem so they could access school computers or on-line data services. You would be resticting the rights of people under 35 to get the information that is available on these services. As for your little soapbox, I hope you slip and fall off !!! I think that I have said enough for now, I anticipate that others will also be nailing your small brian to a wall, so If I missed anything hold on. (n1) Zork is a trademark of Infocom Inc. (n2) 1-2-3 is a trademark if Lotus Development corp. PLEASE DIRECT ALL FUTURE COMMENT TO alt.flame ________________ All opinions expressed above are my own and no other entity need take responsibilty for them. Brian Bresnahan brianb@bucsb.bu.edu or engf0ic@BOSTONU.BITNET
buyse@convex.UUCP (03/18/88)
It is apparent that you are not very well versed on this subject.
Taking up the "no one can buy a modem under 35" proposal, I might point
out that this constitutes an unreasonable discrimination on the basis of
age. There is not sufficient cause to promote such a ban only because
there is a positive correlation between a particular age groups and the
degree of pirating within that age group.
I also add that I do not believe that the main sources of original
software that are subsequently pirated come from dealer's stores when the
sales persons "are not looking".
Finally, laws are not written and passed by the loosely described
"government or anyone". Brush up on your legislative process.
Personally, I believe pirating to be a much less severe issue in the last
couple of years as compared with the early eighties. More and more
makers of excellent software are dropping copy protection schemes, and
the purchasers of this software no longer need to deprotect the software
in order to make archival backups for legitimate purposes.
-Russell Buyse.
UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!buysecfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP (Christopher Chiesa) (03/19/88)
In article <1513@bucsb.UUCP>, brianb@bucsb.UUCP (Brian Bresnahan) writes: > ******* FLAME ALERT ******* . . . > > > I also think they should have signs on their doors > >or something saying "We will take up your disks that you bring in here unless > >you've got a receipt from us with you." Therefore, people would hopefully > >not bring in their disks. > > First, why are people bringing the disks into the store in the first > place, I don't think any store owner is stupid enough to not realize that > someone is sitting there copying the software. They may not be STUPID, per se (although the general level of knowledge dis- played in most computer stores {and there are a lot of them} that I've visited over, oh, the last ten-fifteen years, doesn't really deny the possibility), but most computer-store employees that I've ever seen are either ABSENT or OVERWORKED when customers are in the store. I have RARELY if EVER seen a store employee stand by a person who brings in their own disks, inserts them into a computer on display, and does whatever he damn well pleases. In short, copy- ing CAN and DOES go on in stores -- I've seen it. > If a person is bringing > disks to the store, they probably are bringing them so they can test out > the compatability of their data on the new software, and where those disk Maybe SOME of them, even MOST of them, are, but there is a definite non-zero percentage of users who just walk in and copy stuff, and can get away with it because the clerk or attendant or whatever is too uninformed (I still refuse to say STUPID) to know what's going on. The original comment about "...unless it is someone the store owners know very very well..." is RIDICULOUS -- half the time, THOSE "very very well"-known people are the very ones doing the copying, under the auspices (or at least the deliberately blind eye) of the store owners, with whom they are in cahoots. If you don't want a 60-plus-line lecture on my theory behind all this type of thing, hit 'n' now. If you haven't hit 'n' now, sit back for some theorizin'. I think this is what it all boils down to. Comments/flames about content (to heck with SIZE, yeah, I noticed it's big) welcome. In the lifetime of any system, service, utility, etc., an "evolutionary pro- cess" occurs. A system (BBS, information service, Welfare, Social Security) starts out providing a good service, at an affordable price, to a small group of clients/customers/users, who enjoy a good bit of elbow room because the system has a LOT of RESOURCES, and FEW USERS. This lasts a while, but sooner or later the balance shifts. Users tell their friends how great the system is, the friends become new users, and soon there are MANY USERS and FEW RE- SOURCES. By simple mathematics, each individual user must now get a smaller piece of the pie. Resources themselves deteriorate, partly due to natural "wear and tear," and partly due to abuse from those users who, seeing a system with lots of extra capacity in the early days, don't worry about drawing con- servatively on those resources for the sake of their lasting longer in the future. (Example: how long does a new city bus last before graffiti appears on seat backs, seat cushions are torn/slashed, etc., in addition to just plain loosening of bolts from road vibration? Or, how long can MCI or SPRINT keep up a particular LD access number and set of codes, before the "SmartModem" hackers break 'em and start using them for "free" phone service?) Managers gradually (or not so gradually) implement more and more measures (registra- tion, licensing, proof-of-identity, security codes, secret passwords, etc. etc.) in an effort to counteract the abuses, but then the abusers just try harder, or work up new methods of abuse, and the process simply escalates. Of course, as a side effect, the service provided to legitimate users declines in quality, prices rise, and NOBODY's happy. The old-timers who were "there at the beginning" complain bitterly that "things were better in the old days," but nobody can really DO anything. And so it is with pirating, whether by disk copy, modem transfer, or secret meeting in back alley. 'Way back when next to nobody had computers, there was probably (I wasn't there :-) ) next to no piracy because there wasn't much TO pirate. Who'd take home a card deck of JCL statements, huh? But out in the wide world, human nature was what it's always been; as soon as there were computers and software, that segment of the population who tape LPs from their friends, rather than buying them, print fake IDs to get into bars a few years early, sneak onto buses, etc., extended their activities to copying/pirating software, and presto! - here we are today, with the Federal government feeling the need to intervene. I personally am of the opinion that this is all "human nature," and therefore unavoidable. There doesn't seem to be any solution, even for the individual; does one wash one's hands of it, or try to fight it, or ignore it and fend for oneself in the cold cruel world? Whatever you do, you'll spend a lot of time angry, and there'll be a lot of people against you. On the other hand, there'll also be a lot of people who AGREE with you, and you can derive some comfort from sitting around b*tching to each other. Personally, I plan to do a little of all of these! This should generate some interesting feedback; flame away! Chris Chiesa Senior, CS Dept. Ball State University Muncie, IN -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Chris Chiesa <><><><><> <> {ihpn4|seismo}!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!cfchiesa <> <> cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Chris Chiesa <><><><><> <> {ihpn4|seismo}!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!cfchiesa <> <> cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
laba-4an@web2e.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) (03/19/88)
See what happens when software piracy becomes an issue? What do you say we continue this in alt.flame? That's where groups redirect their flaming postings; I think it would be highly appropriate at this point. Enough is enough. Let's go back to work, and ignore that turkey. He's probably just trying to piss everybody off (note the number of newsgroups he posted to). We must let immaturity run it's course. -- "If you don't like the articles, don't read them." -- [name removed], obviously not at 1200 baud.
GZT.EWW@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU ("Wes Williams") (03/21/88)
er, Scuze me, what is the line in the header References:(800nuchat UUCP) ? Is this an echo chat line (2 way ?) from the UUCP net? Thx. -------
brianb@bucsb.UUCP (Brian Bresnahan) (03/22/88)
(NOTE: I have received mail from people indicating that my last posting
appeared in the news several times, I would like to track this problem
down, if this happened at your site, please send me a message.
Thank you,
brianb@bucsb.bu.edu )
In article <2399@bsu-cs.UUCP> cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP (Christopher Chiesa) writes:
>>In article <1513@bucsb.UUCP>, brianb@bucsb.UUCP (Brian Bresnahan) writes:
>>> I also think they should have signs on their doors
>>>or something saying"We will take up your disks that you bring in here unless
>>>you've got a receipt from us with you." Therefore, people would hopefully
>>>not bring in their disks.
>>
>> First, why are people bringing the disks into the store in the first
>> place, I don't think any store owner is stupid enough to not realize that
>> someone is sitting there copying the software.
>
>They may not be STUPID, per se (although the general level of knowledge dis-
>played in most computer stores {and there are a lot of them} that I've visited
>over, oh, the last ten-fifteen years, doesn't really deny the possibility),
>but most computer-store employees that I've ever seen are either ABSENT or
>OVERWORKED when customers are in the store. I have RARELY if EVER seen a store
>employee stand by a person who brings in their own disks, inserts them into
>a computer on display, and does whatever he damn well pleases. In short, copy-
>ing CAN and DOES go on in stores -- I've seen it.
>
I think you may be missing my point here, if the store employees are for the
most part absent, then they would not be around to enfore the policy of not
bringing disks. The proposed (although silly) policy would not work unless
carefully enforced, so in the stores you are speaking of they probably would
not even know if you brought in disks. So it really does not matter.
>> If a person is bringing
>> disks to the store, they probably are bringing them so they can test out
>> the compatability of their data on the new software, and where those disk
>
>Maybe SOME of them, even MOST of them, are, but there is a definite non-zero
>percentage of users who just walk in and copy stuff, and can get away with it
>because the clerk or attendant or whatever is too uninformed (I still refuse
>to say STUPID) to know what's going on. The original comment about "...unless
>it is someone the store owners know very very well..." is RIDICULOUS -- half
>the time, THOSE "very very well"-known people are the very ones doing the
>copying, under the auspices (or at least the deliberately blind eye) of the
>store owners, with whom they are in cahoots.
>
The deliberately blind eye is a completly different matter, we all probably
know of stores that have more copies of XYZ than they ever bought and may
even let friends copy, but the policies propoesed by the original poster
will not affect this. This was the key part of my argument, all of his
ideas were totally ineffective and would do more to hurt non-pirates than
those who are stealing the software.
[NON DEBATED POINTS DELETED]
>
>And so it is with pirating, whether by disk copy, modem transfer, or secret
>meeting in back alley. 'Way back when next to nobody had computers, there was
>probably (I wasn't there :-) ) next to no piracy because there wasn't much TO
>pirate. Who'd take home a card deck of JCL statements, huh? But out in the
>wide world, human nature was what it's always been; as soon as there were
>computers and software, that segment of the population who tape LPs from their
>friends, rather than buying them, print fake IDs to get into bars a few years
>early, sneak onto buses, etc., extended their activities to copying/pirating
>software, and presto! -here we are today, with the Federal government feeling
>the need to intervene.
>
The problem I see with a defeatist attitude like this is that if it becomes
to prevalent, the federal government may be forced to step in and take
action that non of will like. We must try to police ourselves somewhat so
that we can aviod things like modem registration and federally issued ids for
our hardware. The software publishing lobby is growing more powerful all
the time. The major publishers can kill a new machine by saying that they
will not publish for it. Excessive theft cuases the pubishers to rethink
the plans for conversion of software and coming out with new packages. I
agree than many companies charge to much for their products, but the answer
is not to steal the product(Your use of it just increases its popularity),
but to use another lower priced product. This will send a stronger message
to the companies, when lower priced software sells well.
>I personally am of the opinion that this is all "human nature," and therefore
>unavoidable. There doesn't seem to be any solution, even for the individual;
>does one wash one's hands of it, or try to fight it, or ignore it and fend for
>oneself in the cold cruel world? Whatever you do, you'll spend a lot of time
>angry, and there'll be a lot of people against you.On the other hand, there'll
>also be a lot of people who AGREE with you, and you can derive some comfort
>from sitting around b*tching to each other. Personally, I plan to do a little
>of all of these!
While I agree the there will always be a portion of the market that will always
steal the software, not matter what price it is. I feel that a reduction in
price along with a better attitude by the publishers, could do a great deal
to reduce piracy.
>
>This should generate some interesting feedback; flame away!
>
>Chris Chiesa
>Senior, CS Dept.
>Ball State University
>Muncie, IN
>
________________________________
Brian Bresnahan
brianb@bucsb.bu.edu
engf0ic@BOSTONU.BITNETbrianb@bucsb.UUCP (Brian Bresnahan) (03/22/88)
In article <521@nunki.usc.edu> rjung@castor.usc.edu (Robert Jung) writes: > > > Seeing as how there is a lot of traffic on the topic (again) of pirating, >I might as well jump into the fray... > >* PIRATING BY MODEM/BBS: I always thought a simple idea would be to have > sysops regester their boards with a federal agency. That way, if > anything sneaky does go on, it'd be easier to prosecute. Of course, > if you don't regester your BBS, that's punishable too... (Get rid > of those "underground" BBS's). > That would have the effect of killing most BBS's, if you start registering systems, then you have to have a board to regulate them and then there would be fees, waiting periods, lots of silly rules(like how many lines your message screen can be etc.) With the pressure of regulation, that would drive most of the part-time boards and many others out of operation. I am a sysop, I don't allow anything to do with piracy on my system, but If i had to go trough a pile of red tape to keep it running I would probably shut it down. > > >* DISK-COPY SOFTWARE: Why don't we just make programs like DiskCopy II, > the DiskCloners, etc., etc., etc., **ILLEGAL**? Admittedly, there's > a need for the user to make backups of his stuff, but if the company > sends you a backup disk when you send in your warranty card... > This may be possible, but there would probably be a big fight to get the law passed, since making copies of software for yourself would also have to be made illegal by this process.(ie give these products no legitimate purpose, then you could work to outlaw them). Also this would not stop things, because underground copying programs would start to circulate. > > --R.J. > B-) > > >______________________________________________________________________________ >Bitnet: rjung@castor.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == = > = == = > Power WithOUT the Price = == = > ===== == ===== > Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ==== _________________________- Brian Bresnahan brianb@bucsb.bu.edu engf0ic@BOSTONU.BITNET
bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) (03/22/88)
kuehn@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jeffery A. Kuehn) writes: > >Can we drop the subject of pirating? Just for a month or so? PLEASE! It was dropped! I thought this was the month to discuss it? So, what do you want to discuss? :-) Bill UUCP: {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax rutgers!marque}!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo INET: bilbo@pnet02.cts.com
bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) (03/22/88)
buyse@convex.UUCP writes: > >Personally, I believe pirating to be a much less severe issue in the last >couple of years as compared with the early eighties. More and more >makers of excellent software are dropping copy protection schemes, and >the purchasers of this software no longer need to deprotect the software >in order to make archival backups for legitimate purposes. I suspect that developers are seeing that there is just as much piracy going on without protection as with protection and have discovered how to live with piracy at this level. If piracy is a constant you might still discover you can increase your sales by lowering your prices or taking other marketing tacts. Bill UUCP: {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax rutgers!marque}!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo INET: bilbo@pnet02.cts.com
arthur@pnet02.cts.com (Arthur L. Rubin) (03/23/88)
kudla@pawl20.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >...Also, like an audio recording, any >computer-based record cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. This is news to me. Can any lawyers confirm or deny. It seems to me that, if discovered, a copy of a computer program could be prosecuted for copyright violation if the owner cannot produce an "offical" copy. Arthur L. Rubin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4519 Richard Drive Los Angeles, CA 90032-1227 Phone: (213)221-5033 (home w/o answering machine) Phone: (213)221-1962 (home) MCI Mail: ARUBIN 216-5888 Telex (WUI/MCI): 6502165888 "6502165888 MCI" CompuServe: 70707,453 DELPHI: RUNNINGTRTLE UUCP: [ ihnp4 hplabs!hp-sdd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!gryphon!pnet02!arthur ARPA: crash!gryphon!pnet02!arthur@nosc INET: arthur@pnet02.cts.com Arthur L. Rubin 4519 Richard Drive Los Angeles, CA 90032-1227 Phone: (213)221-5033 (home w/o answering machine) Phone: (213)221-1962 (home) MCI Mail: ARUBIN 216-5888 Telex (WUI/MCI): 6502165888 "6502165888 MCI" CompuServe: 70707,453 DELPHI: RUNNINGTRTLE UUCP: [ ihnp4 hplabs!hp-sdd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!gryphon!pnet02!arthur ARPA: crash!gryphon!pnet02!arthur@nosc INET: arthur@pnet02.cts.com
davise@byuvax.bitnet (03/23/88)
Cute dude, if you think people above 35 are the ones that are going to help this business along in the future then great. Banning modems won't help any, we'll get them elsewhere. The blunt fact is -- without youthful minds in this business, people 35 and older couldn't get the job done. Not all youth pirate, some of us are in it for the long haul and hopefully someday will be taking your job out from under you. Watch out buddy. Life ain't fair and I can hardly wait for the day I take your job because I had the chance at a head start communicating with the big boys when I was between 15 and 20 years old. Mach's guet Evan Davis
zgel05@apctrc.UUCP (George E. Lehmann) (03/24/88)
In article <2969@gryphon.CTS.COM> arthur@pnet02.cts.com (Arthur L. Rubin) writes: >kudla@pawl20.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >>...Also, like an audio recording, any >>computer-based record cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. >This is news to me. Can any lawyers confirm or deny. It seems to me that, if Last year, in mod.risks, several reports about an individual in England being prosecuted for planting a "time-bomb" in a software system indicated the judge had ruled inadmissable a number of computer records because they had not been properly stored away. This implies that had the police there properly locked up the evidence (backup tapes in this instance) to insure against their being altered, that they would have been admissable as evidence... -- George Lehmann, ...!uunet!apctrc!zgel05 Amoco Production Co., PO BOX 3385, Tulsa, Ok 74102 ph:918-660-4066 Standard Disclaimer: Contents are my responsibility, not AMOCO's.
dvac@drutx.ATT.COM (VachonD) (03/25/88)
In article <2969@gryphon.CTS.COM>, arthur@pnet02.cts.com (Arthur L. Rubin) writes: > kudla@pawl20.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: > >...Also, like an audio recording, any > >computer-based record cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. > > This is news to me. Can any lawyers confirm or deny. It seems to me that, if > discovered, a copy of a computer program could be prosecuted for copyright > violation if the owner cannot produce an "offical" copy. > Arthur L. Rubin What is to stop a person from saying, yeah, I had that disk once, and made an archival backup of it, and then sold it to a guy for $10. The backup of the program is legal for archival purposes, now that the original has been sold, where is (or is there) a law that says I have to erase that archival backup?! I have heard this several times and it seems to be a catch-all type thing for people who pirate.... Is there a law against this? Later -Dan Vachon- !inhp4!drutx!dvac
jordan%lvvb.span@SDS.SDSC.EDU (RICH) (03/25/88)
This is a bit out of topic, but I had to respond to this. I'll be brief. On Wenesday, March 23rd, Larry Smith wrote (and included): . . > NEVER surrender ANY liberty for the sake of the security > of a few. . . (to a suggestion that modem purchases be age-restricted) . > Silly and unconstitutional. But I find the suggestion more disturbing than > the piracy. Don't people CONSIDER issues of fairness and constitutionality > before suggesting things like this? A democracy can become a tyranny just > as easily as any other form of government. Suggesting draconian solutions > like banning modems for a certain age group smacks of the "well, it works, > so let's do it" mentality. "We are just giving up a LITTLE fairness - just > a LITTLE freedom." Bullshit. I'd rather have my stuff pirated. . . >>* DISK-COPY SOFTWARE: Why don't we just make programs like DiskCopy II, >> the DiskCloners, etc., etc., etc., **ILLEGAL**? > Once again, prior restraint. This is a rotten legal idea, and it does not > stand up well in court. Even aside from the (sorry to mention that incon- > venient document again) CONSTITUTIONAL issues. What is banning programs of > this sort if not censorship? Besides, banning the tools of crime has never > been popular in the US. That's why guns and crowbars are still legal (guns > most places and crowbars everywhere - what, you never heard of burglary? > Required equipment.) > Larry Smith > Apollo probably does not agree with me. That, too, is "real life". Please don't lump things like firearms, crowbars, and copy programs together with so-called 'tools of crime'. All of these items have legitimate uses (and in the case of firearms some heavy-handedly overlooked Constitutional pro- tection) that far outweigh their use by criminals. Granted that criminals use all of these (along with probably just about every other implement ever crea- ted) in the commission of various crimes, using the argument that 'banning the tools of crime is unpopular' as a reason for the continued legality of firearms is incorrect. Their continued legality is based on what little attention most lawmakers pay to the Second Amendment, the continuing lack of popularity for anti-gun laws in election years and when put to public vote, and the strong belief on the parts of millions of Americans that you " NEVER surrender ANY liberty for the sake of the security of a few" (I quote). Please be more care- ful in the analogies you make. With the exception of this one item, I greatly appreciated and strongly agreed with the rest of your posting. (And no, I'm not a member of the NRA) Richard Jordan <jordan%lvva.span@sds.sdsc.edu> DISCLAIMER: The stuff said above is my own stuff.
jordan%lvvb.span@SDS.SDSC.EDU (RICH) (03/26/88)
On archival backups... I don't recall the exact wording, but all archival backups of a copyrited item (specifically software) must be either included in the sale or transfer of licence for said software, or they must be destroyed. In other words, once you sell a package, you lose all right to use of that package, and your once legal archival backup is now illegal. This can be modified by any actual software license in force on a given package, but I've never heard of a licensor giving the right to maintain archival backups after transfer of ownership or license for the package. Hope this helps.
laba-4an@web6e.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) (03/26/88)
In article <7048@drutx.ATT.COM> dvac@drutx.ATT.COM (VachonD) writes: >What is to stop a person from saying, yeah, I had that disk once, and made an >archival backup of it, and then sold it to a guy for $10. The backup of the >program is legal for archival purposes, now that the original has been sold, >where is (or is there) a law that says I have to erase that archival backup?! > >I have heard this several times and it seems to be a catch-all type thing >for people who pirate.... Is there a law against this? > >Later -Dan Vachon- !inhp4!drutx!dvac I believe that the OWNER is allowed to keep an archival backup. Not being the owner, you would then be in posession of an illegal copy. I think that it does spell out somewhere that you can't keep the backup, but I'm not sure where... -- "If I were a lawyer, I'd charge you for answer."
lsmith@apollo.uucp (Lawrence C. Smith) (03/29/88)
In article <880324204424.222002c4@Sds.Sdsc.Edu> jordan%lvvb.span@SDS.SDSC.EDU (RICH) writes: >This is a bit out of topic, but I had to respond to this. I'll be brief. >On Wenesday, March 23rd, Larry Smith wrote (and included): >. >. >> NEVER surrender ANY liberty for the sake of the security >> of a few. >. >. (to a suggestion that modem purchases be age-restricted) >. >> Silly and unconstitutional. But I find the suggestion more disturbing than >. >>>* DISK-COPY SOFTWARE: Why don't we just make programs like DiskCopy II, >>> the DiskCloners, etc., etc., etc., **ILLEGAL**? >> Once again, prior restraint. This is a rotten legal idea, and it does not >> stand up well in court. Even aside from the (sorry to mention that incon- >> venient document again) CONSTITUTIONAL issues. What is banning programs of >> this sort if not censorship? Besides, banning the tools of crime has never >> been popular in the US. That's why guns and crowbars are still legal (guns >> most places and crowbars everywhere - what, you never heard of burglary? >> Required equipment.) > >> Larry Smith >> Apollo probably does not agree with me. That, too, is "real life". > >Please don't lump things like firearms, crowbars, and copy programs together >with so-called 'tools of crime'. All of these items have legitimate uses (and Of COURSE firearms, crowbars and copy programs have legitimate uses. That is precisely my point. I was attempting (perhaps clumsily) to point out that possession of these devices implies nothing of intent, and despite the fact that screwdrivers and crowbars are employed in virtually every burglary in the world, every day, has not lead to attempts to ban them - for the simple reason that the mere idea of banning such basic and important tools would be utter insanity - even for a politician (sadly, the issue for guns, while similar, is not so obvious) I find most of the "solutions" to piracy posted thus far - culminating in the "no one under 35 rule" - to be in the same category. >in the case of firearms some heavy-handedly overlooked Constitutional pro- >tection) that far outweigh their use by criminals. Granted that criminals use >all of these (along with probably just about every other implement ever crea- >ted) in the commission of various crimes, using the argument that 'banning the >tools of crime is unpopular' as a reason for the continued legality of firearms >is incorrect. Their continued legality is based on what little attention most >lawmakers pay to the Second Amendment, the continuing lack of popularity for "banning the tools of crime is unpopular?" I hope I have not implied any such thing. It is very popular in the US, it is the source of the gun control noise to which you refer. My point is not that banning the tools is popular or unpopular it is that such bans are stupid, useless and counterproductive. >anti-gun laws in election years and when put to public vote, and the strong >belief on the parts of millions of Americans that you " NEVER surrender ANY >liberty for the sake of the security of a few" (I quote). Please be more care- >ful in the analogies you make. With the exception of this one item, I greatly When arguing via reductio ad absurdum one always runs this risk, we actually agree on this item, too. >appreciated and strongly agreed with the rest of your posting. > >(And no, I'm not a member of the NRA) Me neither. > >Richard Jordan ><jordan%lvva.span@sds.sdsc.edu> > >DISCLAIMER: The stuff said above is my own stuff. Me, too. Except for what HE said.
khill@home.csc.ti.com (Ken Hill - Patents) (04/07/88)
In article <2969@gryphon.CTS.COM> arthur@pnet02.cts.com (Arthur L. Rubin) writes: .kudla@pawl20.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: .>...Also, like an audio recording, any .>computer-based record cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. . .This is news to me. Can any lawyers confirm or deny. It seems to me that, if .discovered, a copy of a computer program could be prosecuted for copyright .violation if the owner cannot produce an "offical" copy. .Arthur L. Rubin . Computer based records can be entered, as long as certain ground rules are observed. They can be entered to prove that the information they contain is actually true, if they fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. For example, business records kept in the normal course of business, when introduced and authenticated by a custodian, can be so used. They may also be used against a party to refute something they said, or to show merely that they have an illegal copy, etc. In any case, all records must be properly authenticated, but this is not much more difficult than for other kinds of documents. For example, here in Dallas, two engineers were convicted of theft of trade secrets when tapes full of software taken from their previous employer were found at their new employer, and it was shown that the software had been loaded onto the new employer's system. There are no typos. If you think you saw one, see an opthamolo... optaha... ophthamal... eye doctor. Ken Hill {convex!smu, texsun,im4u,seismo!ut-sally!im4u}!ti-csl!khill