cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (02/21/88)
In article <22977@brunix.UUCP> cs224065@brap0a94.UUCP (Nicholas Thompson) writes: >Don't bet on it...as I recall from the booklet on corporate security >they gave me when I first went to work, the only ABSOLUTE way to >secure the copyright on the document is with the symbol-which-is- >usually-approximated-by-(c). ... I think this is basically right. The trick is the word _absolute_. *In*the*United*States*, the word "Copyright" (or the abbreviation "Copr") is fully adequate. But _internationally_ things are slipperier. This from "Words Into Type": Universal international copyright protection does not exist. However, works of Unisted States citizens may be protected in foreign countries uner various treaties and conventions. Copyright protection is available in countries currently parties to the \fIUniversal Copyright Convention\fP, provided that all the published copies of the work bear the notice precscribed by the \fIConvention\fP, that is, the symbol \(co, the name of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication. ... __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Labs, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com
rwilson@polya.STANFORD.EDU (Randy Wilson) (02/22/88)
It may not be standard ASCII, but on the Mac, option-g gives a copyright sign in most fonts. Wouldn't this do the job? Randy Wilson
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (02/22/88)
>It may not be standard ASCII, but on the Mac, option-g gives a copyright >sign in most fonts. Wouldn't this do the job? > >Randy Wilson Yes, but only on the computer in question. It wouldn't be valid as, say, a comment in the source code, especially if you are transporting the code beyond your personal system. -Matt
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (02/23/88)
In article <2069@polya.STANFORD.EDU> rwilson@polya.UUCP (Randy Wilson) writes: >It may not be standard ASCII, but on the Mac, option-g gives a copyright >sign in most fonts. Wouldn't this do the job? It would do the job IF and ONLY IF you are sure that the document which you wish to protect by copyright will be displayed ONLY on another MAC or some other computer using the same code-to-character mapping for non-standard characters. Since it is non-standard, it will not even look remotely like a "c in a circle" on most terminals/printers, and thus would not "do the job". One interesting question is this, however: As has been stated, a "c in parentheses" is not a valid legal substitute for a "c in a circle". Thus, " (c) 1987 by John Doe " is not a valid copyright notice. However, since the notation "Copyright 1986 by John Doe" is valid, does the presence of "c in parentheses" between the word "Copyright" and the year REALLY invalidate the copyright notice? After all, all that is required (the word "Copyright" and the year) IS PRESENT, there's just a bit extra. Anyone care to comment? -- Wolf N. Paul Phone: (214) 306-9101 (h) (214) 404-8077 (w) 3387 Sam Rayburn Run UUCP: ihnp4!killer!{dcs, doulos}!wnp Carrollton, TX 75007 INTERNET: wnp@dcs.UUCP ESL: 62832882 Pat Robertson does NOT speak for all evangelical Christians--not for me, anyway!
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (02/24/88)
Copyright notice or no copyright notice, in my experience it's very difficult to enforce outside the US and Canada. There was a company in Germany that started to produce MT C-Shell with their own manual, diskettes, and packaging. German authorities informed me that this is perfectly *legal* in Germany, becuase you can't copyright anything but "works of art"; and software isn't in this category. The only illegal act would be if they were claiming they were selling "original" factory goods. As long as they say they are selling copies, it's legal in Germany. Even if they are breaking the law, all we could do is attempt to get a court order to force them to stop selling. The best solution turned out to be getting a real legit. distributor in Germany; and let the competition of a supported product for less money shut them down (which it did, I think). I don't know if the legal issues above are "correct", but that's what happened to us. -- David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (02/24/88)
In article <28@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >In article <2069@polya.STANFORD.EDU> rwilson@polya.UUCP (Randy Wilson) writes: >One interesting question is this, however: As has been stated, a >"c in parentheses" is not a valid legal substitute for a "c in a circle". > >Thus, " (c) 1987 by John Doe " is not a valid copyright notice. > >However, since the notation "Copyright 1986 by John Doe" is valid, does the >presence of "c in parentheses" between the word "Copyright" and the year >REALLY invalidate the copyright notice? > >After all, all that is required (the word "Copyright" and the year) IS PRESENT, >there's just a bit extra. I would put my money on notices of the type: (c) Copyright 1988 Jim Frost All Rights Reserved as being legal for two reasons. First, it satisfies the requirements of the copyright law, and second, your uSoft linker displays this when you run it. It seems likely that uSoft's lawyers know what they're doing. Whether or not Copyright (c) 1988 Jim Frost All Rights Reserved is legal would be open to interpretation, but again the law only states that the word "Copyright" (or the abbr. or \(co), the year, and the name be present. Hence Copyright 1988 by Jim Frost All Rights Reserved should also be valid (this is another common one and I believe that it is valid). In both of these cases, they fulfill the copyright law to the letter. Does anyone have a definitive answer? Is it legal to place other words or symbols in the copyright notice so long as the notice is still obvious? jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) (02/24/88)
*** EAT THIS AND THERE'S MORE BELOW *** In article <20124@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: >In article <28@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >>In article <2069@polya.STANFORD.EDU> rwilson@polya.UUCP (Randy Wilson) writes: ... Well, I suppose you've heard all this by now. I hope we all agree that Copyright 1988 by John Q. Doe is valid. What I understand, though, is that the newer laws give considerable protection to material WITHOUT copyright notices. I believe that copyright notices are only necessary in the event that you want to bring specific types of legal action against infringing parties. My curiousity's aroused. Would someone with some specific legal knowledge please contribute a lucid description of the way the newer copyright laws work; in particular, how they apply to computer software. -joseph /* * What, me worry? I personally don't care what the vapor pressure of * that mercury in the corner is. In fact I don't even remember when * I spilled it. Maybe it was back before I got the shakes. */ *** EAT THIS YOU LINESUCKING PIG ***
keld@diku.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) (02/28/88)
In article <147@bdt.UUCP> david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: >Copyright notice or no copyright notice, in my experience it's very >difficult to enforce outside the US and Canada. Well, it should not be so. And there is a very big difference between USA and Canada with respect to copyright, as Canada has signed the international Berner convention on copyright, and USA has not. Most of Europe has ratified the Berner convention too, so it should be as easy to get your rights respected in Germany (BRD) as in Canada. In Berner Union countries it is not required to have a copyright notice on your work, to enjoy copyright protection. >There was a company in Germany that started to produce MT C-Shell with >their own manual, diskettes, and packaging. German authorities informed >me that this is perfectly *legal* in Germany, becuase you can't copyright >anything but "works of art"; and software isn't in this category. Well, it is the common theory within Berner Union experts that software *is* protected by the international copyright convention, this has been discussed a lot of times in these circles, and in other international legal circles discussion the protection of software rights. The problem is that there have not been that many cases to settle the situation. I know that there is proposal to the Danish copyright law which explicitely states software as covered by copyright, and they justify this as just a codification of current state. To enjoy copyright protection, the "work of art" should be "published" and the work should be of a certain "work height" to be intellectual property worth being protected. It is assumed that almost all software has the sufficient intelligence put into it for it to be protected. Not protected is very trivial programs which everybody with just a common knowledge of the issue could write. I think things like AT&T's "true" program will fall in this category, and even more complicated things too:-). I do not think the software you mentioned falls into this category. >The only illegal act would be if they were claiming they were selling >"original" factory goods. As long as they say they are selling copies, >it's legal in Germany. Even if they are breaking the law, all we could >do is attempt to get a court order to force them to stop selling. It should be enough to go to the police. But then it seems that the police did not know the legal status. Did you talk to a copyright lawyer? >The best solution turned out to be getting a real legit. distributor >in Germany; and let the competition of a supported product for less >money shut them down (which it did, I think). I don't know if the >legal issues above are "correct", but that's what happened to us. When was it? Keld Simonsen, U of Copenhagen keld@diku.dk uunet!diku!keld
hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) (03/01/88)
In article <147@bdt.UUCP> david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: >There was a company in Germany that started to produce MT C-Shell with >their own manual, diskettes, and packaging. German authorities informed >me that this is perfectly *legal* in Germany, becuase you can't copyright >anything but "works of art"; and software isn't in this category. This is positively wrong. It is not (!) legal to copy the work of someone else. In fact, it's illegal to copy software at all. You may make up to seven backup copies of software you buyed, but you must not give any away (for the case of fire or the like..). All brain-work is protected under the law of copyright (german: Uhrheberrecht). Even if somebody deletes the copyright message or patches the version number (happened with WordStar years ago). > Even if they are breaking the law, all we could >do is attempt to get a court order to force them to stop selling. Wrong again. That would only be the first thing. Even if they would give the copies away for free they _could_ go to jail... If you ask the right peaople the right question you will get the desired answer. hase -- Hartmut Semken, Berlin (West) (*east of West-Germany :-) hase@netmbx.UUCP I think, you may be right in what I think you're thinking. (Douglas Adams)
mike@turing.UNM.EDU (Michael I. Bushnell) (03/01/88)
In article <1464@netmbx.UUCP> hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) writes: >This is positively wrong. It is not (!) legal to copy the work of >someone else. >In fact, it's illegal to copy software at all. You may make up to seven >backup copies of software you buyed, but you must not give any away (for >the case of fire or the like..). ACK!!!! WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WR[erp!] Let's see. I am writing this with the aid of GNU emacs, using copied usenet software. If I wanted a printed copy, I would probably use TeX. The authors of GNU emacs, TeX, and the news software got no money from me or from my employer. [Thanks, guys!] It is quite legal to copy software. It is illegal to copy software when it is Copyrighted Of course, lots of copyrighted things can be copied. That is because the author said so. >All brain-work is protected under the law of copyright (german: >Uhrheberrecht). Even if somebody deletes the copyright message or >patches the version number (happened with WordStar years ago). It is copyrighted after publication ONLY if a copyright notice was on the published original. Anything which is "published" and not marked "Copyright" can be freely copied. LET'S STOMP OUT SOFTWARE HOARDING! Rah Rah Rah! Michael I. Bushnell Internet: mike@turing.unm.edu UUCP: mike@turing.unm.edu Bitnet: mike@turing.unm.edu CSnet: mike@turing.unm.edu YourFavoriteNet: mike@turing.unm.edu Golly, don't domains make everything simpler? For peoply who run UUCP but haven't switched over to smail *yet*, you can try {ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax!turing!mike. Or write: {Box 295, Coronado Hall} or {Computer Science, Farris Engineering Center} University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Or call: (505)277- [2992=dorm][6116=work] I work for the CS department. But don't blame them.
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (03/03/88)
In article <3689@diku.dk> keld@diku.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) writes: [deleted a lot about Berner Union] >Well, it is the common theory within Berner Union experts that >software *is* protected by the international copyright convention, >this has been discussed a lot of times in these circles, and in >other international legal circles discussion the protection of >software rights. [ more deleted ] >It should be enough to go to the police. But then it seems that the >police did not know the legal status. Did you talk to a copyright >lawyer? My point was that "legal" or not, and regardless of any discussions to that effect here or elsewhere: DON'T GET YOUR HOPES UP. The authorites showed no desire to help a small software company in Oakland; that includes both US and German authorites (police and Fed. agencies). Any attempts to bring justice would have meant a law suit in German courts. Several US and German copyright lawyers (supposedly some of the top ones in the world) advised against doing anything (a strange practice for a lawyer with nothing to lose) becuase it would be very costly, and the outcome would at best be a court order to stop production, which the company could simply ignore anyway since the police had better things to do. In other words: you can read and discuss laws and legalities all you want, but in the *real world* all this means very little. -- David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/03/88)
In article <845@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@turing.UNM.EDU (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > In article <1464@netmbx.UUCP> hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) writes: >>This is positively wrong. It is not (!) legal to copy the work of >>someone else. >>In fact, it's illegal to copy software at all. You may make up to seven >>backup copies of software you buyed, but you must not give any away (for >>the case of fire or the like..). > > ACK!!!! WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WR[erp!] Michael, look before you leap. (And if you can't read the notices posted around the pool, have someone read them to you, slowly, if need be.) Ahem! Hartmut from (west) Berlin was describing How Things Work over there, in Germany. Not how they (in theory only, it appears) work over here in the States. The handling of patents and copyrights in the U.S. isn't necessarily the same as in Canada, Germany, Mexico, ... Now, do you want to try again?
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (03/04/88)
In article <1464@netmbx.UUCP> hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) writes: >In fact, it's illegal to copy software at all. You may make up to seven >backup copies of software you buyed, but you must not give any away (for >the case of fire or the like..). I realize this is what the law says but that's not the way it happened. I say again NOBODY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT A SMALL COMPANY IN OAKLAND CA USA! It was sort of us against them; and neither the US nor the German authorities wanted to get involved. Even Atari recommended no action. >Even if they would give the copies away for free they _could_ go to jail... > >If you ask the right peaople the right question you will get the desired >answer. Where were you when we needed you? Do you have authority in these matters? How much will it cost me? -- David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"
fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) (03/06/88)
In article <845@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@turing.UNM.EDU (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > Anything which is "published" and not marked "Copyright" can be freely > copied. This isn't entirely accurate. Publication without a notice that the author claims a copyright in the work releases the work into the public domain SO LONG AS THE PUBLICATION WAS DONE WITH THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER'S CONSENT. I'm sure that's what you meant but there seems to be a lot of confusion about the copyright law and I wouldn't want anyone to think removal of a work's copyright notice followed by publication would put it in the public domain. --Fabbian Dufoe 350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 813-823-2350 UUCP: ...gatech!codas!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
rjd@nancy (Rob Demillo) (03/08/88)
In article <20124@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: >>One interesting question is this, however: As has been stated, a >>"c in parentheses" is not a valid legal substitute for a "c in a circle". >> >>Thus, " (c) 1987 by John Doe " is not a valid copyright notice. >> > >I would put my money on notices of the type: > > (c) Copyright 1988 Jim Frost All Rights Reserved > >as being legal for two reasons. First, it satisfies the requirements >of the copyright law, and second, your uSoft linker displays this when >you run it. It seems likely that uSoft's lawyers know what they're >doing. Sorry Jim -- you would lose your money. There has been an alarming amount of misinformation about the legalities of software protection on the net of late (not just comp.sys.atari.st). For a complete treatment on the topic, please consult "Copyright Law," an article by Jordan Breslow, an attorney practicing copyright and computer law in California. This article is routinely distributed with the News package for UNIX systems. If you are on a UNIX machine that has News (as you must be to be reading this), contact your local systems manager to ask him for a copy of it. He/she should have it on line somewhere. To get back to the topic, I quote from this paper: "...unfortunately, computers don't draw small circles very well [refering to the symbol of the c with a circle around it for a copyright mark], so programmers have resorted to a c in parenthesis: (c). Too bad. That has no legal meaning. When you put your notice in the code and on the screen, use Copyright or Copr. if you can't make a circle..." - Rob DeMillo Brown University - Planetary Science Group UUCP: ...{seismo!harpo}!ihnp4!brunix!rjd -- or -- ...{seismo!harpo}!ihnp4!brunix!europa!demillo BITNET: GE702025@BROWNVM SPAN: BRNPSG::DEMILLO CompuServe: 73537,2737 ------ "...I am not so sure what you want me for! Either your machine is a fool, or me..." -- "WarGames", CSN
hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) (03/08/88)
In article <160@bdt.UUCP> david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: > >My point was that "legal" or not, and regardless of any discussions >to that effect here or elsewhere: DON'T GET YOUR HOPES UP. The >authorites showed no desire to help a small software company in Oakland; >that includes both US and German authorites (police and Fed. agencies). I almost don't believe that, but... yes, possible. > >In other words: you can read and discuss laws and legalities all you want, >but in the *real world* all this means very little. THAT ist awfully true. We all now about piracy, do we? There was an attempt to stop piracy: if you can't stop it, legalize it. Make the program shareware (back to the original subject...) My opinion? Shareware ist a great thing... if anybody pays (like me; now)... hase -- Hartmut Semken, Berlin (West) (*east of West-Germany :-) hase@netmbx.UUCP I think, you may be right in what I think you're thinking. (Douglas Adams)
keld@diku.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) (03/09/88)
In article <160@bdt.UUCP> david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: >My point was that "legal" or not, and regardless of any discussions >to that effect here or elsewhere: DON'T GET YOUR HOPES UP. The >authorites showed no desire to help a small software company in Oakland; >that includes both US and German authorites (police and Fed. agencies). >Any attempts to bring justice would have meant a law suit in German courts. >Several US and German copyright lawyers (supposedly some of the top ones >in the world) advised against doing anything (a strange practice for a >lawyer with nothing to lose) becuase it would be very costly, and the >outcome would at best be a court order to stop production, which the >company could simply ignore anyway since the police had better things >to do. I got some more info on the history of international copyright laws. Apparantly UNESCO is dealing with this, this is the forum that the Berner Convention is discussed. Software protection has been discussed here too, and during the 1970-ies they reached a concensus that software should be protected thru copyright, as a litterary work. The USA then made the new copyright act in 1980, and some bigger European countries followed up, notably France and Germany (BRD) in 1985 included software explicitly in the coverage for copyright in their revisions of copyright laws. If you had your troubles in Germany before 1985, then it might have been because German copyright laws did not cover software at that time. I am no expert on German law, however. >In other words: you can read and discuss laws and legalities all you want, >but in the *real world* all this means very little. I now presume that your experiences is pre-1985, and that German law did not protect you. That must have been the reason why neither the police nor your lawyers would help you. If your product enjoys copyright protection and this is violated, then this is what I understand the Danish law to be: The offence is a criminal case, and the state attorney is taking your case, you will not have to pay any lawyers expenses. The offender can get sentenced to penalties or in worse cases ordinary imprisonment up to 3 months. I think your case would be of the worse kind, as it was for profit. The offended has to go to the police and make an action on the offence. Additionally you can claim damages, but this is a civil case. Having the offender sentenced in the criminal case should make it easier to get the damages thru in a civil case, though. I have no experiences of my own on such cases, so your comment on the real world and slow/uninterested police I cannot offer any real background for. It is of cause always easier in the books and and easier if you are near to the offence. It is my impression that the police takes all criminal offences seriously, especially when there is much money involved; the courts may be slow though. I do think though that your German "experience" was caused by lack of software protection at that time in German laws, and the situation has improved considerably since then, the conditions for foreign software producers in Europe are not as bad as you indicate. Keld Simonsen, U of Copenhagen keld@diku.dk
dug@turing.ac.uk (Dug Scoular) (03/11/88)
Hi there
Has anyone tried using MacinTalk v1.31 (Mac II compatible) with
LightSpeed Pascal (or C) on a Mac II ?
I get various weird and wonderful problems.
I have a program that used to work perfectly with the old macintalk
driver, it now only manages to speak on the first call to MacInTalk(),
all subsequent calls put up the watch cursor for a short while but no
speech gets uttered. It looks like it is processing the phonemes but
not actually managing to speak.
Another problem is caused by the code below:
The code below sometimes gives a "Bus Error Exception" or just fails to
say anything when run from within LS Pascal.
Finally (not related to MacinTalk), does anyone find their Mac II screen
goes completely haywire (rather like a hardware fault) but this always
seems to happen when I am either debugging in LS Pascal or running a
stand-alone program generated by LS Pascal. It is only the screen that
starts to go, the mac is still running. I can quit LS Pascal and return
to the finder.
PROGRAM say;
{$I-}
USES
SpeechIntf; {Macintalk interface}
VAR
instr : str255;
theSpeech : SpeechHandle; {handle to speech globals}
SErr : SpeechErr;
output : Handle; {handle to phonetic string}
theMode : F0Mode;
PROCEDURE SayIt;
BEGIN
instr := 'Hello everybody';
{$R-}
SErr := Reader(theSpeech, pointer(ORD4(@instr) + 1),
ORD(instr[0]), output);
{$R+}
SErr := MacinTalk(theSpeech, output); {say it.}
END; {SayIt}
PROCEDURE MyExit;
BEGIN
SpeechOff(theSpeech); {close the speech driver.}
DisposHandle(output); {release the output handle}
END; {MyExit}
BEGIN { main program starts here }
SErr := SpeechOn('', theSpeech); {Open the speech driver}
IF SErr <> 0 THEN
WriteLn('Error opening Macintalk: ', SErr)
ELSE
BEGIN
theMode := Natural;
SpeechPitch(theSpeech, 0, theMode);
output := NewHandle(0);
SayIt;
MyExit;
END;
END.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Douglas A. Scoular "The big print giveth
E-mail: dug@turing.ac.uk and the small print taketh away"