lare@clinet.FI (Lauri Hirvonen) (02/03/88)
Sender:
Followup-To:
Keywords:
Some time ago, I did send a message to the net talking about is a programmer
just selling his time to software company or an artist?
It was also placed in some local BBS's in Finland.
Here is a reply received from a person working in the largest computer
company of Finland. It is his personal opinion, but he is known to be
well informed on these topics.
SW-COPYRIGHT PROBLEM, by Esko Hirvonen, Nokia Corporation, Finland.
1. The ultimate goal of patentlaw and other intellectual-
right-laws for USEFUL products is the benefit of the
mankind. It motivates the inventors to publish their
inventions if they have a monopoly for their inventions
during a limited period. Otherwise they probably use their
inventions in secret, which limits technology transfer.
2. The ultimate purpose of the copyright laws is to protect
the honor and publishing rights of the CREATOR of an
ART-WORK. The value of art is not time-dependent and
copyrights are usually valid 50 years after the death of
the creator. Only the appearance of the art-work can be
copyrighted, not the idea or structure of it.
3. Common sense agrees that the original owner of the
ART-WORK is the creator and the owner of an useful
product is the risktaker, usually the salarypayer of
the inventor.
4. The problem with SW-rights is that the value of the
product depends how USEFUL it is, not how beautiful it
is. However for practical reasons the copyright law is
used in most countries to protect SW. This creates new
problems. The CREATIVE work of a SW can be done and is
mostly done in definition stage, which can not be protected
and the appearance, which can be protected is done in
the coding stage, where very little or no creativity is
needed. In this case it is very difficult to find a
copyright owner at all. This is a fundamental limitation
of the copyright law in SW-protection and can not be
avoided by minor modifications in the law-text.
5. I anticipate, that a separate law for SW-protection
will emerge within 10 years. SW-protection belongs to
industrial-rights, it is not like art-work-copyrighting,
where the artists can for example claim extra pay for
reusage of the products.
6. In SW trade definite ownership of the product for the
seller is necessary. If the law in some countries does
not support this, big companies do not buy or make
SW-products in these countries.keld@diku.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) (02/06/88)
In article <589@clinet.FI> lare@clinet.FI (Lauri Hirvonen) writes: > SW-COPYRIGHT PROBLEM, by Esko Hirvonen, Nokia Corporation, Finland. The comments comes from an employee of a large employer. There are different sides of this problem, and what the employer side brings forward does not always hold in court. I have some comments to the article based on the fact that the copyright laws I know is adhering to the same international convention as the Finnish laws, namely the revised Berner convention of 24th July 1971. Berner union countries consists of most of the world, including Europe and Canada, but not USA. > 3. Common sense agrees that the original owner of the > ART-WORK is the creator and the owner of an useful > product is the risktaker, usually the salarypayer of > the inventor. The Danish Supreme court has judged otherwise in a case on the copyrights of journalists. It is the journalist who has the copyright not the newspaper. By analogy this also counts for programmers. > 5. I anticipate, that a separate law for SW-protection > will emerge within 10 years. SW-protection belongs to > industrial-rights, it is not like art-work-copyrighting, > where the artists can for example claim extra pay for > reusage of the products. The Danish parliament has discussed this. The only new paragraph with special treatment of software in mind were, that you were not allowed to make your personal copies by a third party. Remember, you are allowed to make a few copies for personal use of all copyrighted material. That is for free, and the rule is common to all Berner Union countries. Copyright experts expect that the international protection of software will continue to be governed by international copyright (Berner) conventions. > 6. In SW trade definite ownership of the product for the > seller is necessary. If the law in some countries does > not support this, big companies do not buy or make > SW-products in these countries. Copyright remains with the creator, unless this is transferred to somebody else. By agreement the firm can get the copyright from the creator and thus have full rights to the work. There is a Danish law on employee's rights to inventions, of which I do not know the international relations. It says that an employee is entitled to a reasonable sum if his work generates a bigger profit than reasonably expected. This should also apply to programs which can be regarded as inventions. Keld Simonsen keld@diku.dk
keld@uunet.uu.NET (Keld J|rn Simonsen) (02/08/88)
Here is a more international view on copyrighting software, as I
understand it. I hold a Danish master degree in legislate law, but I
am no expert on copyrights. I once spoke to a Danish expert on the
issue and this is what I remember from that talk. Usual disclaimers.
Copyrighting in the USA is something special, as USA has not ratified
the Berner convention, as most of the European countries have, and
Canada has done it too. As software put one EUnet/Usenet is spread
all over the network in a couple of days, you can consider it published
in Berner convention countries, and thus international copyright
laws apply to every single piece of software published on the net.
According to the Berner convention, it is not neccesary to state
"Copyright" etc on the work, if the "work" is of sufficient "height"
with respect to originality, it automatically enjoys copyright
protection. But it does improve your chances proving that it is your
software if you have put a copyright notice on it. And putting a
copyright notice is a good idea, if you also publish it in the USA.
The Berner convention has no such thing as "public domain", and if you
have put something in the public domain and later regret it, well you
can do so in Berner convention countries. You are able to give rights
away like saying "Copyright by Frobozz 1988. Permission to copy is
granted as long as ...", so this is like discussed elsewhere.
One special thing is that it is legal to copy any copyrighted
material if this is for *private* use. This covers music played on
the radio which is tapped on your tape recorder, and it also covers
software which is published on the net and thus governed by copyright
rules. Putting out sentences about "crime" is thus not fully true in
Berner convention countries.
Keld Simonsen, University of Copenhagen keld@diku.dkthomson@uthub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) (02/08/88)
In article <11687@brl-adm.ARPA> keld@uunet.uu.NET writes: >... as USA has not ratified >the Berner convention, as most of the European countries have, and >Canada has done it too. > > ... > >One special thing is that it is legal to copy any copyrighted >material if this is for *private* use. This covers music played on >the radio which is tapped on your tape recorder, and it also covers >software which is published on the net and thus governed by copyright >rules. Surely, this last bit is overstated. I cannot believe that it is permissible to borrow a book from a friend, or from the library, and photocopy the entire thing "for private use". I do know that there has been a great deal of discussion here at the University of Toronto about photocopying. Legal minds here disagree on just which kinds of copying are permitted and which are not, but I do seem to remember a consensus that there is no explicit provision in Canadian law corresponding to the U.S. "fair use" doctrine. This is the U.S. rule which permits limited copying and extraction from copyrighted works for reviews, "scholarly works", and similar uses. There is even talk of a photocopying tax, the proceeds of which would be divided among the holders of copyrights of certain kinds of publications (such as scientific journals). One argument against it is that this fund would pay to foreign copyright holders, even though other countries do not have similar plans benefitting Canadians. -- Brian Thomson, CSRI Univ. of Toronto utcsri!uthub!thomson, thomson@hub.toronto.edu
keld@diku.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) (02/16/88)
In article <693@uthub.toronto.edu> thomson@uthub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson) writes: >In article <11687@brl-adm.ARPA> keld@uunet.uu.NET writes: >>One special thing is that it is legal to copy any copyrighted >>material if this is for *private* use. This covers music played on >>the radio which is tapped on your tape recorder, and it also covers >>software which is published on the net and thus governed by copyright >>rules. >Surely, this last bit is overstated. I cannot believe that it is >permissible to borrow a book from a friend, or from the library, and >photocopy the entire thing "for private use". Well, it is not overstated. It is perfectly legal to borrow a book from the library and photocopy the whole thing for private use. Or borrow a record from the music library... But you may only make a few copies, and for personal use. I do not have the berner convention with me right now, but it is clearly stated in the Danish copyright law, paragraph 11. No restrictions other than as otherwise stated, and this was what I was told in law school too. >I do know that there has been a great deal of discussion here at the >University of Toronto about photocopying. Legal minds here disagree >on just which kinds of copying are permitted and which are not, >but I do seem to remember a consensus that there is no explicit provision >in Canadian law corresponding to the U.S. "fair use" doctrine. >This is the U.S. rule which permits limited copying and extraction from >copyrighted works for reviews, "scholarly works", and similar uses. Copying in schools is another matter. Then it is not "private". There are copy taxes which apply here. There are also copy taxes for firms playing music in their business, e.g. restaurants playing radio. And the taxing people have real troubles getting this tax paid! Keld Simonsen, U of Copenhagen keld@diku.dk