bakken@saturn.UUCP (Dave Bakken) (11/07/86)
> In article <8611020148.AA08257@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > > > > Along the same lines, another way to combat such companies is to > > simply make it unprofitable for them to sell it... Perhaps we could all > > ban together and put in an add in AmigaWord along side the company's add > > saying 'Hack V... etc... Public Domain and FREE'. > > I think Matt is on the right track here. Why not take a few > contributions to get the ball rolling (ie post an address and > Ill send some money) then include in the price of the Fish disks > enough extra charge to cover adds in the prominent AMIGA magazines > for freeware. > You've got my contribution - just post the address and it will be in the mail within 24 hours. I don't care if it is used to place ads or to sue the guilty company. I encourage those who wish to help to also send a contribution to help this, and consider making it at least $20-$25. This kind of piracy has got to be stopped. Dave Bakken Boeing Commercial Airplane Company Flight Simulation Lab uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!saturn!bakken (206) 237-5080 My views are my own, not my employer's. Don't let them deter you from buying the 747 you've been saving hard for.
papa@bacall.UUCP (Marco Papa) (11/09/86)
> In article <383@ur-cvsvax.UUCP> jea@ur-cvsvax.UUCP (Joanne Albano) writes: > >In article <8611020148.AA08257@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > >> > >> Along the same lines, another way to combat such companies is to > >> simply make it unprofitable for them to sell it... Perhaps we could all > >> ban together and put in an add in AmigaWord along side the company's add > >> saying 'Hack V... etc... Public Domain and FREE'. > > > > I don't think Matt should give up on the legal route however. Since he has > asked them nice not to do it, and as I assume the software is publicly > redistributable, not public domain (there is a difference, if you don't > want to allow people to rip you off like this LEAGALLY always include a > copyright notice, with a declaration of intent that the work be freely > redistributed on a not-for-profit basis.), he has REAL solid ground for > a law suit. Since the case is so strong, and since copyright suits are > triple damages (plus punative, I believe) I would be suprised if there > weren't lawyers falling all over themselves to handle it for a cut of the > settlement. > Note that punitive damages can be obtained ONLY if the work has been copyrighted and properly registered with the copyright office of the Library of Congress. Otherwise, one can only collect "actual"damages, which basically meams $ 0.00. > Important Disclaimer: > I am not a lawyer, nor do I attempt to give leagal advice. I'm just the son > of nationally syndicated journalists, and I've grown up hearing ALL about > copyright law at the dinner table. (Thier column, if anyone cares, is called > "The Business Computer" in most newspapers, we all have different last names > in my family... its a long story...) I am not a lawyer either, but I register the copyright on all my software within the required 3 months from the date of publication. Note that time (the 3 months) is an absolute requirement. The forms to fill out are the same ones to register books, just a couple of pages plus two copies of the source code. If one wants to mantain trade secret status, he can also send only the FIRST 25 pages of the FIRST file and the LAST 25 pages of the LAST file, and the copyright office will usually accept the registration. -- Marco Papa Felsina Software
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (11/11/86)
Could everyone *please* get the terminology correct here? Legal matters
are already confusing enough!
If something is "public domain", then there is no copyright notice, and
the author has no say whatsoever over what people do with the program.
People seem to be confusing "freely redistributable" with "public domain".
--
emordnilapanalpanama
Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706
Delphi or GEnie: mnementhjay@isis.UUCP (Jay Batson) (11/12/86)
In article <4351@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >Could everyone *please* get the terminology correct here? Legal matters >are already confusing enough! > >If something is "public domain", then there is no copyright notice, and >the author has no say whatsoever over what people do with the program. >... >-- >Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Well, Tim, I hate to be picky but you aren't even _quite_ correct. The technically legal sequence is this. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, a Copyright in a work "subsists" in the author (or assignee) _from_the_- moment_it_is_created. In other words, the moment our pudgy little fingers reel forth a program, we have a Copyright in it. Now having a Copyright means (mostly) the right to control the re-distribution, copying, selling, ..., and all means of getting the Copyrighted work out. Our right to "control" is something that we have to preserve, though, and the way we do it is by putting the world on notice that we have that right, and we do it through notices. Here's where your definition goes a bit awry. If we allow copies of the work to be distributed _without_ any notices about our ownership of our Copyright, we may be letting the work out into what we have all been calling the "public domain" - meaning you don't desire anymore to have your rights preserved, and anybody in the "public" can copy, re-distribute, sell, etc. the work without having to account to you. But _IF_ you subsequently distribute more copies _WITH_ your Copyright shown thereon, that _WON'T_ restore your Copyright rights: once the horse is out of the barn, you can't bring it back. Another important thing that your definition doesn't speak to is that the assignee/purchaser/licensee of the work may surreptitiously copy the work and give it to a third person, _without_ your Copyright notice on it. This copy is _not_ in the public domain despite the lack of the Copyright notice, and that licensee, and the third person can be held accountable to the Copyright owner. Now we can get picky, and bring up the fact that if the owner lets this copying go on and doesn't make diligent efforts to stop, this may put the work into the public domain. So mere presence/lack of a notice may not tell the whole story. The legally operative facts are whether the Copyright owner has distributed (or allowed to be distributed) copies without notice in a manner so as to evidence his election not to retain his copyright rights. Hope this confused things further. We all need more articles to read :-) -------- "Stop it!! Stop it now. This is getting silly again, and this silliness has _got_ to stop. Go on to the next sketch. Go on. Turn this camera o " Jay Batson ihnp4!onecom!\ isis!jay seismo!{hao,nbires}!/
mjg@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael Gingell) (11/12/86)
In article <8611020148.AA08257@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > > I've always wondered if it was possible to win a case such as this > in court without the use of a lawyer. It seems to me that buying the product > from them and then simply entering that as proof (especially the fact that > your telephone and name are displayed without your permission!) would be > good enough. > I am afraid that going to court would be a waste of time unless the work is copyrighted. A copyright statement alone will give sufficient weight to the action to stop unauthorized sale. No damages though unless the work is formally registered with the US Copyright office. In this case, since John Toebes is not the sole or original author it seems doubtful that he could copyright it alone. John Toebes should not have been surprized. Programming is one thing, selling and making a living is the "Real World" and there are people out there willing to do anything to make a buck. The same thing happened to PC-SIG which has generated a collection of nearly 600 volumes of public domain software for the IBM PC. Now there are dozens of ripp-off merchants selling the same stuff. One company quit brazenly advertizes the entire library for rent. When pressed by PC-SIG to stop the guy said "So sue me - I could use the publicity". Mike Gingell ...decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg