jlockhar@ssibbs.UUCP (John Lockhart) (10/22/88)
In article <10232@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > [deleted stuff, including disclaimers] > It was my understanding of the US Copyright Act amendments of 1980 (the > 96th Congress) amending the 1976 statutes (in re "The Computer Software > Copyright Act") permits one to make four (4) backup copies of purchased > software for one's own use. > > Federal Law supersedes any "shrinkwrap" provisos as well as any (inferior) > state statutes. > [more deletions] > Anyone who says otherwise is uttering bushwa. > Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad] Let me offer you an example of some stunningly stated bushwa, copied without permission from the manual for Menace, an otherwise-terrific game I've purchased; it was produced by the copyright owner, Psygnosis, Ltd., while the game has something to do with Psyclapse (a subdivision?). "Copyright Notice This software product including all screen images concepts audio effects musical material and program code is marketed by Psygnosis Limited who own all rights therein including copyrights. Such marketing of this product gives only the lawful possessor at any time the right to use this program limited to being read from its medium as marketed into the memory of and expected by the computer system to which this product is specifically adapted. Any other use or continuation of use including copying duplicating selling hiring renting lending or otherwise distributing transmitting or transferring this product in contravention of these conditions is in breach of Psygnosis Limited's rights unless specifically authorized in writing by Psygnosis Limited. The product MENACE its program code manuals and all associated product materials are the copyright of Psygnosis Limited who reserve all rights therein. These documents program code and other items may not in whole or part be copied reproduced hired rented lent or transmitted in any way nor translted or reduced to any electornic medium or machine readable form without prior consent in writing from Psygnosis Limited." It goes on to give some trademarks and addresses, and a "Copyright (c) 1988 by Psygnosis Ltd. All Rights Reserved" notice, complete with the circled-c mark instead of my (c). I have preserved Psygnosis's abhorrent lack of punctuation. This notice has, of course, an exceedingly large hogwash content; if ever I can defeat the bloody copy protection, I will be very happy to make myself backup copies in accordance with U.S. law. But it goes to show, you can *claim* anything on earth you want to. With all these restrictions, it's a wonder that the product has ever been sold in accordance with their professed wishes. Incidentally, I have no idea whether such an arrogant copyright claim is valid and/or legally binding in the United Kingdom (could anyone enlighten me on that?), but it should have been modified for the U.S. release. Also, I must echo Thad's disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, and you should thus not take any statements above as legal advice of any sort. -- --- John Lockhart ___________________________________________________________________ ...{mit-eddie,pyramid,datacube}!mirror!ssi3b1!ssibbs!jlockhar jlockhar@ssibbs.UUCP or jwl@feanor.stanford.edu
daves@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Dave Scroggins) (10/25/88)
> Is this a change of policy? I never bought 1.2, I copied it from a friend >(wish I hadn't, because I didn't get update information). I was under the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hey -- don't feel too bad about this. I DID buy it and I didn't update info. either. (At least not from CBM) I also read in a recent AMIGA Mag. that "1.4 system software ... will be ready the beginning of next year." ( I assume this means the beginning of 1989.) Can someone "in the know" tell me if this is true, or just a nasty rumor?? Dave (My memory is gone today -- but that has nothing to do with my computer) S.
msiskin@shogun.cc.umich.edu (Marc Siskin) (10/25/88)
Keywords:
One premise that our lawyer has put forth is that a contract supercedes the
Copyright Law. So the seller of software can make ANY demands on the use
of their product and if you buy the product you have to abide by the provisions
or return the product.
We purchased a videotape for a specific use within the Lab and stated that use
to the distributer. They returned with a sales contract (which is the equi-
velent of the licence agreement for software) that specificly denied use of the
tape for the purpose it was purchased.
One way to discurage bad deals in the licence is to not buy the product and tell
the company why. Enough complaints (and lost sales) might change their minds.
Msiskin@shogun.cc.umich.edu
Followups to Mail Please.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Disclaimer///////////////////////////////
The above happened before I arrived at the Lab so I am going by hearsay.
But I believe my source. All Opinions are my own except where noted.
///////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Dead?? Good Gracious me, no, we have but Slept. -- Slartibartfast HHGTTGsean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (10/26/88)
In article <756@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> msiskin@shogun.cc.umich.edu (Marc Siskin) writes: >One premise that our lawyer has put forth is that a contract supercedes the >Copyright Law. So the seller of software can make ANY demands on the use >of their product and if you buy the product you have to abide by the provisions >or return the product. Depends. Has there been precedent for an unsigned licencing agreement to be enforceable? It seems to me that if the consumer buys something with the license on the inside--indeed he may not even know it is there--then the user has not "agreed" to the terms of the license. In reality, he has bought a copyrighted product. Precedents, anyone? -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet *** The Hacker from Spaaaaaaaaace. {backbone|rutgers|uunet}!ukma!sean *** U of K, Lexington Kentucky, USA ..where Christian movies are censored. *** ``The World... she's a flat! She's a round! Flat! Round! Flat! Round!''
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (10/26/88)
(LICENSE AGREEMENT: By reading the rest of this article, you are
agreeing to send me $50,000.)
msiskin@shogun.cc.umich.edu (Marc Siskin):
One premise that our lawyer has put forth is that a contract
supercedes the Copyright Law.
This premise is valid, but misses the whole point of shrink-warp
license "agreements": They are not contracts. In the absence of
specific enabling legislation, it takes two parties make a contract.
Before you post a follow-up rebutting this, I would like my check for
$50,000 please.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesithad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (10/26/88)
Lawdy merci! That Psygnosis copyright brought to our attention is a wopper, no doubt! :-) I've seen 2-page copyright notices which, when distilled, essentially state nothing, make no assertions about the suitability of the actual software product, and only "guarantee" the medium (e.g. the disk) won't self-destruct. Surprisingly, there ARE some products for the Amiga whose producers DO guarantee the software product. Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
msiskin@shogun.cc.umich.edu (Marc Siskin) (10/27/88)
The act of exchanging something of value constitutes a contract. (remember your Paper Chase Law classes??) However, there are situations where the contract may be invalid. I agree that hidden shrink wrap licences have been mostly struck down. However, that doesn't invalidate the onesided nature of software licenses. By the way, the check is in the E-Mail. :-)
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo L. Schwab) (10/27/88)
In article <2030115@hpcilzb.HP.COM> daves@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Dave Scroggins) writes: >I also read in a recent AMIGA Mag. that "1.4 system software ... will be >ready the beginning of next year." ( I assume this means the beginning >of 1989.) > >Can someone "in the know" tell me if this is true, or just a nasty rumor?? > After running this through my bullshit detector, it registered as 99.44% pure. I.e. I don't think we'll see 1.4 until this time next year at the earliest. ...Unless I've grossly underestimated the progress being made on it. -------- Side issue: Can we please not discuss the copyright and shrink-wrap license issues here? I've seen this argument before, and no one seems to have The Right Answer. It's good to discuss it, but since I don't know how to use the 'k' key yet, I'd rather you didn't. Misc.legal is probable a good place to talk about it. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) (10/28/88)
In article <4493@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >This premise is valid, but misses the whole point of shrink-warp >license "agreements": They are not contracts. In the absence of >specific enabling legislation, it takes two parties make a contract. More interesting, those copywrites usually involve something inside that says "before you open me, read the copywrite notice. Breaking my seal implies you have read and will subscribe to the provisions contained therein" or some such nonsense. You're supposed to take the half out to read their f-ing notice before you open up and play with the new piece of software you just spent 2-weeks pay on. So -- in court they would have to prove you READ AND UNDERSTOOD the copywrite. Well, you had to do so before you could open up the package with the disk in it. But then you have to READ AND UNDERSTAND that too, I would think. Never mind the possibility that your 4-year-old ripped it open, or you can't read English very well (works with Miranda -- ought to work with copywrite notices), etc. The supreme court decided that, by Fair Use, people can make tape copies of their record albums for their own use in spite of the fact that the record companies all say this material is copywritten, etc etc etc. Sounds to me like a similar case -- the more stringent copywrite doesn't mean squat, but the companies put it there to make you THINK it means something. It's kinda like the games at the Renessaince Festival here in Minnesota every fall: "Play at your Own Risk". Ha! Someone falls off a haybail and sprains their ankle and you can guess whose insurance still has to pay for it. Or worse, some thief gets bitten by your dog while robbing your house and sues you. -J -- UUCP: rutgers!dayton!joe (Feed my Dayton Hudson Department Store Company ATT : (612) 375-3537 picture Joe Larson/MIS 1060 (standard disclaimer...) collection) 700 on the Mall Mpls, Mn. 55402
ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) (11/01/88)
You can tell someone doesn't know what the word "copyright" means when they think it has a past tense called "copywritten"! -- -=] Ford [=- "The number of Unix installations (In Real Life: Mike Ditto) has grown to 10, with more expected." ford@kenobi.cts.com - The Unix Programmer's Manual, ...!sdcsvax!crash!elgar!ford 2nd Edition, June, 1972. ditto@cbmvax.commodore.com