jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (12/02/86)
We haven't had very many "problem" postings on the Net because most
Netters realize that the Net is valuable and we wouldn't want to have sites
quitting to avoid legal hassles. Also, we recognize that the person hurt
by a posting on the Net may very well be 'here' on the Net as a participant.
Recently we have had two postings which probably should not have been
made. The 'BREAKOUT' desk accessory was *not* public domain. It was
proprietary code from Atari. The poster has put Atari in a very embarrassing
position. They may want to avoid hurting their image by pursuing the one
who is to be blamed for the posting (not necessarily the person who posted
it, though that person shares the blame in part). Please don't do this again.
The TI59 is a different problem. It is likely that the display, which
uses the TI logo and shows the desk accessory as a TI59 infringes Texas
Instruments' trademarks. Even if the program is public domain (it is in fact
unmarked and we don't have source code to see if the sourcecode was marked
public domain), the Trademark is likely a registered mark and even if it was
not registered, should not have been used.
Cheers! -- Jim O.ravi@mcnc.UUCP (Ravi Subrahmanyan) (12/04/86)
In article <1407@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > > .... The 'BREAKOUT' desk accessory was *not* public domain. It was >proprietary code from Atari. .......... In defense of Eric, I must say that I too had a copy of breakout.acc, which I fully believed to be a PD product, and which I've given away to some other people; now this whole thing has me worried because __ I got the acc from a local dealer, who has it in a disk of PD software that he lets people copy __. I obviously can't *prove* that's how I got it, but is it an authorised copy if the dealer gave it away? Did Atari mean to sell it, or distribute it through dealers? Is there a legal problem in such a case, ie. does my receiving it free from the dealer mean I am not to give it away also (I can hardly imagine the dealer would give it if he could sell it)? -ravi
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (12/06/86)
In article <1850@alvin.mcnc.UUCP> ravi@alvin.UUCP (Ravi Subrahmanyan) writes: >In article <1407@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >> >> .... The 'BREAKOUT' desk accessory was *not* public domain. It was >>proprietary code from Atari. .......... > > In defense of Eric, I must say that I too had a copy of Actually, I tried to word my posting to avoid casting any blame in any direction. I certainly don't know that it was Eric's fault and I have no particular reason to believe that he would have posted it if he had known better. >breakout.acc, which I fully believed to be a PD product, and which >I've given away to some other people; now this whole thing has me >worried because __ I got the acc from a local dealer, who has it in a disk >of PD software that he lets people copy __. I obviously can't *prove* >that's how I got it, but is it an authorised copy if the dealer gave >it away? Did Atari mean to sell it, or distribute it through dealers? I don't think Atari meant to allow it out. Neil's postings seem to indicate that they hadn't come to any decision on the matter, but I'll defer the question to him. >Is there a legal problem in such a case, ie. does my receiving it free >from the dealer mean I am not to give it away also (I can hardly The absolute legal rights depend on the surrounding facts so I won't bother to try to tell you the answer to your question. Frankly, fully aside from the legal rights, in a situation like this I usually kill the file eventually out of respect for the author's wishes. The only reason I keep it around at all is a matter of curiosity (to see if it actually worked). I've already killed my copy of BREAKOUT. Please keep in mind that there is a difference between the BREAKOUT code problems and the TI-59 code problems. If we can obliterate the TI trademarks in the TI-59 emulator, I can't see anything wrong with that one. As such I would like to encourage you to keep that program with the objective of making the necessary changes and re-posting a version which doesn't create unnecessary legal problems. TI may disagree with me on this point, but at least we would have at least avoided the obvious and clear legal problems. >imagine the dealer would give it if he could sell it)? > > -ravi
gordon@sage.cs.reading.ac.uk (Simon Gordon) (12/08/86)
In article <1850@alvin.mcnc.UUCP> ravi@alvin.UUCP (Ravi Subrahmanyan) writes: >In article <1407@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >> >> .... The 'BREAKOUT' desk accessory was *not* public domain. It was >>proprietary code from Atari. .......... > > In defense of Eric, I must say that I too had a copy of >breakout.acc, which I fully believed to be a PD product, and which They can't realy do much now, because a great many people got this game thinking it was in the PD. I got my copy from a freind who visited a freind of his in America (Im in England). The program doesn't include any copywrite notice so how were we to know. The problem gets even worse when stuff is made PD in some countries, and not in others. Simon gordon@sage reading university
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (12/12/86)
In article <238@sage.cs.reading.ac.uk> gordon@sage.UUCP (Simon Gordon) writes: ... > >They can't realy do much now, because a great many people got this game >thinking it was in the PD. I got my copy from a freind who visited a freind >of his in America (Im in England). The program doesn't include any >copywrite notice so how were we to know. Simon, in many countries, and I believe in England, a work is protected unless it is marked otherwise or is otherwise by action of law (such as by the expiry of copyright protection). I would appreciate it if you would confirm or deny this (if you can dig up a knowledgeable law student) as it is a matter of no small importance to us. In Canada, we definitely do *not* require Copyright notice. The only reason we use Copyright notices in Canada is to protect works which may cross over into the US where Canadian works are protected via UCC only if we have the proper notice. This is not a requirement under Berne. I don't like Berne, but that's another matter. > >The problem gets even worse when stuff is made PD in some countries, >and not in others. It's a problem if you govern yourself strickly by what you can legally get away with. If you decide to respect the wishes of an author regardless of what the absolute law is, you really don't have to care much about the blather at all. If a person with a reasonable claim to authorship says you shouldn't have something they produced you can kill the file out of what respect you have for that person. I've done this before and will likely do it again. >