rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) (10/18/87)
Just because someone places a restriction on something doesn't mean it has to be followed. I have no qualms about doing anything I damn well please with any piece of software I get my hands on. On the other hand, most of the restrictions are rather innocuous, tending towards `you can't sell it of pretend you wrote it.' I intend to do neither, my militant attitude being confined to duplication and hacking. If someone wants to use the net as a beta test site for future products, that is okay with me also. Unipress (Gosling) EMACS is a good example. The original was redistributable but also bore the copyright as well. At some point they decided to cut us off, attempting to seduce us with proprietary enhancements to entice us to buy. It seems that the function of the embryonic copyright is to merely pave the way. In short, keep posting them. It is up to each individual user to follow the restrictions to the degree that he sees fit, and up to the copywriter to enforce those restrictions to the degree that he is able to. Most companys do this by controlling the distribution. Most `violations' will be rather low key and undetectable. People foolish enuf to attempt to sell other people's work should be arrested for stupidity anyway. It would be interesting to see the concept of an `attractive nuisance' be applied to computer software. Suppose TPC or Berkeley were to post their version of UNIX (I refuse to say `registered TM', come and get me) to this newsgroup with a copyright notice saying `if you use this, send us $43,000 dollars, or $16,000 if you delete the source', then went around logging onto systems to see what they were running, and prosecuted those people who hadn't paid up. Hmmm... (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> National Bureau of Standards Flamer's Hotline: (301) 975-5688 Disclaimer: These are my own positions and beliefs, not thise of NBS.
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/19/87)
>Just because someone places a restriction on something doesn't mean it >has to be followed. I have no qualms about doing anything I damn well >please with any piece of software I get my hands on. By the same right, this means that if I want to borrow your car for some drag racing (even if it happens to be locked) I should feel free, right? Just because you don't want me to, well, that doesn't mean anything. Or, say, I need some more CPU cycles. Your machine has a modem. If I can get past your password restrictions, I have the perfect right to use YOUR machine and YOUR software any way I want. Who cares what restrictions you want on it. I'll do anything I damn well want with it. If I happen to need more disk space than you have available, well, that's okay -- you didn't need those files anyway. Your attitude is a horrible rationalization. It is also illegal as hell. If you take what you say and put it in some other context (as above) ESPECIALLY a context where you might lose something of it instead of gain, it shows how stupid and self-serving it is. The word is theft. If you can't live with the restrictions the author puts on their software, do what I do. Throw it out. This kind of rationalization, this "I know better than the law does" attitude is piracy, is thievery, and shows the lack of professionalism and maturity endemic to these kinds of problems. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ
david@sun.uucp (David DiGiacomo) (10/19/87)
In article <31209@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Just because someone places a restriction on something doesn't mean it >>has to be followed. I have no qualms about doing anything I damn well >>please with any piece of software I get my hands on. > >By the same right, this means that if I want to borrow your car for some >drag racing (even if it happens to be locked) I should feel free, right? >Just because you don't want me to, well, that doesn't mean anything. > >Or, say, I need some more CPU cycles. Your machine has a modem. If I can get >past your password restrictions, I have the perfect right to use YOUR >machine and YOUR software any way I want. Who cares what restrictions you >want on it. I'll do anything I damn well want with it. If I happen to need >more disk space than you have available, well, that's okay -- you didn't >need those files anyway. Neither analogy is relevant. In the case of physical objects such as a car or computer, there is the possibility of damage caused by the borrower, or that the owner would unexpectedly need to use the object and find it unavailable. As has been pointed out by others, software is unlike physical objects in that it can be copied indefinitely with no degradation, and at no cost. If I post software to the net, nothing Root Boy does to it will affect my subsequent enjoyment of it.
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/19/87)
>>>Just because someone places a restriction on something doesn't mean it >>>has to be followed. I have no qualms about doing anything I damn well >>>please with any piece of software I get my hands on. >>By the same right, this means that if I want to borrow your car for some >>[analogy deleted for space] >>Or, say, I need some more CPU cycles. Your machine has a modem. >>[analogy deleted for space] >Neither analogy is relevant. In the case of physical objects such as a >car or computer, there is the possibility of damage caused by the >borrower, or that the owner would unexpectedly need to use the object >and find it unavailable. This is unutterable bulloney. First, there is a law against stealing cars. There is also a law against stealing copyrighted software. If you feel that you are above one, there is no way you can claim that we aren't just as far above the other. Both are theft. Plain and simple. Theft. Second, are you claiming that if I steal your car and return it before you need it I have committed no crime? That's your implication. >As has been pointed out by others, software is >unlike physical objects in that it can be copied indefinitely with no >degradation, and at no cost. If I post software to the net, nothing >Root Boy does to it will affect my subsequent enjoyment of it. What about things like intrinsic value? If you steal my software and ignore its legal and binding restrictions, what does that do to the worth of software? I may still have my copy, but it isn't worth anything anymore. Theft is theft. If you break the law, you break the law. You can rationalize all you want, but the bottom line is that you are a thief. chuq Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (10/20/87)
The original article, "V11INF3: Poll on copyrights" was published by me in comp.sources.unix, a moderated Usenet newsgroup that is gatewayed to multiple mailing lists. Jim Cotrell made the mistake of posting a reply, rather than just mailing me his vote. If you want your opinion to affect what I do with comp.sources.unix and copyrighted software, then please! DO NOT! post discussions or start flamewars in this newgroup, or other mailing lists. If I even get to read your article, you can rest assured I will attach it no credence. The only opinions that will count on what happens with c.s.u is the ones that are mailed to me. I have over 200 opinions now, and more flow in each day. There's a definite trend, I think, but it's a close one. Individual votes, opinions, and arguments still can make a difference. If you have an opinion, and you want it to affect how the Usenet's "most" source group is run, >>MAIL<< your feelings to me. /rich $alz, Moderator thereof -- For comp.sources.unix stuff, mail to sources@uunet.uu.net.
johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) (10/20/87)
How can someone log onto my system to see if am using an unlicensed copy
of TPC or Berkley if they have no userid? Seems to me that they can't
check to see if the user is using there system in order to prosecute him
if they can't gain access. I think most program copyright and license
agreements are ludicrous.
--
John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP: ...!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john
\johnmralf@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralf Brown) (10/20/87)
In article <31209@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Just because someone places a restriction on something doesn't mean it >>has to be followed. I have no qualms about doing anything I damn well >>please with any piece of software I get my hands on. ... >Your attitude is a horrible rationalization. It is also illegal as hell. If >you take what you say and put it in some other context (as above) ESPECIALLY >a context where you might lose something of it instead of gain, it shows how >stupid and self-serving it is. ... >Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM >Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ The way I understand copyright laws, you may do anything you want with a *legally* acquired program, provided that you *do not redistribute* any modifications without permission from the copyright holder. Of course, most license agreements prevent you from loading the program into memory :-) This is in analogy to being able to mark up, tear apart, etc. a book you've bought. Std. Disc.: I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I did recently read a book on copyrighting software. -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |4 line .sigs|"I do not fear computers.|DISCLAIMER? FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | are a pain | I fear the lack of |I claimed BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA | them..." --Isaac Asimov |something?
ned@ghostwheel.UUCP (Ned Nowotny) (10/22/87)
In article <212@papaya.bbn.com> rsalz@uunet.uu.net (Rich Salz) writes: >Jim Cotrell made the mistake of posting a reply, rather than just mailing >me his vote. Why is it a "mistake" to start a discussion on software copyrights? Flame Wars are not necessarily a bad thing if readers have an opportunity to learn the opinions of their fellow professionals. After all, comp.sources.d is a "discussion" group. >If you want your opinion to affect what I do with comp.sources.unix and >copyrighted software, then please! DO NOT! post discussions or start >flamewars in this newgroup, or other mailing lists. If I even get to >read your article, you can rest assured I will attach it no credence. Who says that a posting to comp.sources.d on the subject of software copyrights is intended to influence the moderator? Perhaps a disscussion of the reasons for copyrights on freely distributed software and the reactions people have to such software is needed. Judging by Jim Cotrell's followup and the responses to it, such a discussion may be well worthwhile. Frankly, I can see nothing wrong with placing a copyright on an original work which is then given away (i.e. freely distributed on USENET and through other media). Whether money changes hands or not, there are good ethical and legal reasons for respecting copyright notices. It does not matter whether appropriate legalese was used in wording the notice or whether the copyright is, in fact, enforcible as a practical matter. Such notices should be respected, or the software should not be used or kept by those who object. And of course, no one should take another person's original work and sell it for profit without the express consent of the author. This consent can be given by an explicit declaration that the work in question has been placed in the public domain, but it should not be assumed that publicly available material is de facto public domain. Ethics may seem abstract, but such abstractions, when commonly accepted, make it a great deal easier to live with reality. Ned Nowotny (ned@ghostwheel.aca.mcc.com.UUCP)
jonasf@kuling.UUCP (Jonas Flygare ) (10/22/87)
In article <31219@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >This is unutterable bulloney. > >First, there is a law against stealing cars. There is also a law against >stealing copyrighted software. If you feel that you are above one, there is >no way you can claim that we aren't just as far above the other. Both are >theft. Plain and simple. Theft. > >Second, are you claiming that if I steal your car and return it before you >need it I have committed no crime? That's your implication. > >>As has been pointed out by others, software is >>unlike physical objects in that it can be copied indefinitely with no >>degradation, and at no cost. If I post software to the net, nothing >>Root Boy does to it will affect my subsequent enjoyment of it. > >What about things like intrinsic value? If you steal my software and ignore >its legal and binding restrictions, what does that do to the worth of >software? I may still have my copy, but it isn't worth anything anymore. > >Theft is theft. If you break the law, you break the law. You can rationalize >all you want, but the bottom line is that you are a thief. Ah, I see this debate a couple of times... I might as well throw some more kindlings on the fire.. ;-) I generally tend to agree with what you say, *but* there is also a question of the programmers/companys having some obligations to the customer.. I have seen several examples of ridiculously overpriced programs, and programs being packed as to make them look like they can handle really difficult things (sorry for being so vague here) which they can, *if* you buy the upgrading for lots of $$$... I can understand someone having bought an expensive program, starting to do some pirating. Also, I can understand the want to test the program. This form of pirating I don't really mind.. Let me explain why. If I get a copy of a nice program, I am handicapped in at least three ways. 1) Lack of manuals. This can be a real pain. 2) Lack of support 3) Inability to use the program for developing. As long as we are talking games, I guess only point 1 & 2 applies. And systematic pirating of games *is* really troublesome for the company making them. The laws are really needed. But, regarding tools etc, I for one will *not* buy a program without either hearing from people whom i judge trustworthy, or having a demo-copy. Some companies realize this, and distribute demo-disks, with for example the save functions removed. That is excellent! If they don't I can usually get a copy from some friend, try it out, and if I like it, go out and buy it. If I don't disks are re-formatted for something more useful. Finally, Copyright laws are different in different countries.. Here in Sweden pirating was outlawed just some year(s?) ago. The story goes along the lines that the authorities caught someone advertising copies obviously pirated. They could prove that he had copied both games and spreadsheet programs. The court ruled that the copying of the games was a felony, but copying the spreadsheet programs was not, due to their lack of artistic value. Which just proves what I known all along... Its a mad, mad, mad world.. ;-) >chuq >Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM >Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (10/22/87)
In article <208@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> ralf@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralf Brown) writes: >The way I understand copyright laws, you may do anything you want with a >*legally* acquired program, provided that you *do not redistribute* any >modifications without permission from the copyright holder. Of course, >most license agreements prevent you from loading the program into memory :-) Could we lay this one to rest. As I recall there is a provision in the copyright law about "normal and intended use" which allows for the load (copy) of a program into memory for execution. Remember that "copy", in this usage, is a legal term, not the simple meaning that the dictionary gives. I mean you might as well say that I can't read a book because the image of the page gets projected onto my retina in the same way that a copy machine (can't say Xerox here can I) makes a copy. Can somebody with the actual text post it and end this myth? Jerry Aguirre
ralf@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralf Brown) (10/22/87)
In article <7418@oliveb.UUCP> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes: >In article <208@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> I write: >> Of course, >>most license agreements prevent you from loading the program into memory :-) ^^^^ > >Could we lay this one to rest. As I recall there is a provision in the >copyright law about "normal and intended use" which allows for the load >(copy) of a program into memory for execution. [..] > > Jerry Aguirre Perhaps you overlooked the :-).... I was being sarcastic, having seen a number of license agreements with clauses like "licensed for a single computer only, may not be used on any other machine once used on the first machine" and "licensed for a period of N years only". And of course all the clauses preventing you from modifying it to better suit your needs (or maybe even make it usable at all :-( ) I wish all license agreements were like Borland's--"treat it just as you would a book, with the exception that you may make as many backup copies as needed." -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |4 line .sigs|"I do not fear computers.|DISCLAIMER? FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | are a pain | I fear the lack of |I claimed BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA | them..." --Isaac Asimov |something?
drw@culdev1.UUCP (Dale Worley) (10/23/87)
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes: | Could we lay this one to rest. As I recall there is a provision in the | copyright law about "normal and intended use" which allows for the load | (copy) of a program into memory for execution. There's a "computer program copyright act" that lists much of what is "normal use". If I remember correctly, loading a program into memory for execution and making backups are both explicitly listed as "normal use". Dale
smv@necis.UUCP (Steve Valentine) (10/23/87)
In article <31219@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>>>[Root Boy wrote:] >>>>Just because someone places a restriction on something doesn't mean it >>>>has to be followed. I have no qualms about doing anything I damn well >>>>please with any piece of software I get my hands on. ... >First, there is a law against stealing cars. There is also a law against >stealing copyrighted software. If you feel that you are above one, there is >no way you can claim that we aren't just as far above the other. Both are >theft. Plain and simple. Theft. >Second, are you claiming that if I steal your car and return it before you >need it I have committed no crime? That's your implication. >>As has been pointed out by others, software is >>unlike physical objects in that it can be copied indefinitely with no >>degradation, and at no cost. If I post software to the net, nothing >>Root Boy does to it will affect my subsequent enjoyment of it. >What about things like intrinsic value? If you steal my software and ignore >its legal and binding restrictions, what does that do to the worth of >software? I may still have my copy, but it isn't worth anything anymore. >Theft is theft. If you break the law, you break the law. You can rationalize >all you want, but the bottom line is that you are a thief. >chuq chuq, My understanding of Root Boy's message was that he was refering to software that was placed into his hands by the author (with or without those silly copywrong notices). If you post software to a public forum such as Usenet it's not fair to expect people not to do with it as they choose (short of selling it as their own). It's like dangling candy in front of your kid sister and snaching it away when she grabs for it. Also, you seem to be forgetting that there have been laws against all sorts of things, like blacks wanting to sit in the front of a bus, or against people who wish to consume alcohol. These two examples are, fortunately, no longer on the books. Unfortunately, others that retard technical progress to benefit the capitalists are. "Theft of service" and "Violation of copyright" are two prime examples of things that are considered "wrong" because someone, somewhere thinks they would have made a buck if it didn't happen. More often than not, it isn't the creator of the service or work, but rather some middleman, that holds this opinion. The copyright and patent laws were put on the books to serve the general good, not to put people on the gravy train for life. The general good was best served by protecting the authors and inventors creations so that the creaters could afford to continue to create. Books were published at affordable prices that reflected the cost of printing and binding, with a moderate profit. Authors made lots of money by selling many copies. Inventions were licensed with royalties to be paid. In general the protections served to improve the availability of the creation, and make public the knowledge that went into it. Today, copyright and patent laws are used to limit or prevent the distribution of these creations. In my view, this is no longer serving the public good. -- Steve Valentine, NEC Information Systems 289 Great Rd., Acton, MA 01720 smv@necis.nec.com Life is like a movie, but you have to be Shirley Maclaine to see the sequel.
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/24/87)
>My understanding of Root Boy's message was that he was refering to software that >was placed into his hands by the author (with or without those silly copywrong >notices). >If you post software to a public forum such as Usenet it's not fair to expect >people not to do with it as they choose (short of selling it as their own). >It's like dangling candy in front of your kid sister and snaching it away when >she grabs for it. Um, I don't have much sympathy for this. A piece of software has been posted with a legal copyright on it. You now claim that the author should expect you to break the law because you can't help yourself? He posts it in good faith that you'll hold your end of the bargain, and he's to blame when you don't? No, I'm sorry. If you can't live with the restrictions the author puts on his software, you have two choices. Don't use it, or break the law. You can't rationalize theft. Many have tried, but breaking the law is breaking the law. >Also, >you seem to be forgetting that there have been laws against all sorts of things, >like blacks wanting to sit in the front of a bus, or against people who wish to >consume alcohol. Fine, so software theft is unfair, just like racist. You know what people did to racist laws? They fought to have them changed. If you don't like the law, get it changed. You can't just claim that you're above it. >These two examples are, fortunately, no longer on the books. yup. I'm glad you can't make fun of the blacks anymore (in case anyone cares). it has nothing to do with this discussion, though... >Today, copyright and patent laws are used to limit or prevent the distribution >of these creations. In my view, this is no longer serving the public good. It doesn't serve YOUR good, perhaps. But it serves the authors good. Imagine how many authors would bother to write anything if folks could just walk up and take it away from them? I wouldn't. Without the right to license or limit access to the software, the software has no value. Without value, why bother to do anything? I'm sorry if my being able to protect my investment is inconvenient to you, but I don't really care. If YOU created something of value and I came and took it away from you, you'd feel differently, too. chuq Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (10/25/87)
in article <31219@sun.uucp>, chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) says: <long flame war about copyrights and authors posting copyrighted software to the net deleted, in which one person says that if the author is stupid enuf to post it to the net, the author really doesn't have much to say about what you do with his creation, and Chuq saying "What about the law?"> > Theft is theft. If you break the law, you break the law. You can rationalize > all you want, but the bottom line is that you are a thief. And of course Congressman Greg Tarver (D. Shreveport) is a criminal because back in the '60s, he used the white mens room at the bus station (he's black), and was arrested for violation of a city code forbidding just that. And got arrested several times for creating a public nuisance (especially when a whole bunch of them sambos sat at the front of a bus and started singing "We Shall Overcome" :-). Talk about morality and ethics if you like. But don't interject The Law (in capital letters) into the conversation. Laws have nothing to do with either morality, OR ethics. At least we have THAT lesson left over from the civil rights movement, even if we today have now forgotten everything else from that era (as demonstrated by Yuppyism and the "Me Generation"). -- Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk with you again....
lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) (10/25/87)
I understand the opinion of legal, moral, and ethical standards which indicate that IF something is copyrighted then one should follow the copyright restrictions, even if the author goes beyond that stated in federal and international standards - many authors go beyond the protection that the law gives to state ridiculous restrictions (one can only run this program while wearing purple underware on Weds whose dates end in 3 or 9, etc :-)). What I dont understand is why one would want to put RIDICULOUS restrictions on ones work. Obviously one might want to protect ones creation so that it may not be used to make lots of money for the user without getting some back - at least obviously to SOME folks. Also in my mind it is acceptable for a person to want to keep their name on something, and even to require patches to be sent (though I would rather see folks REQUEST, since there is probably little chance of one wandering around the world getting supenas (sp?) to the source code of ones program on particular computer, so that a diff can be done against the original... I can even stretch my mind to its limits and understand why one would want to place one's ETHICAL and MORAL standards within a program, imposing them onto others (Kermit is not supposed to be used within any military application for example). But why refuse to allow ones source to be distributed over services which charge x dollars for y baud rates, etc. The various bizarre features that I have seen seem to be overkill and perhaps even publicity stunts to see who is paying attention... -- Larry W. Virden 75046,606 (CIS) 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 cbosgd!n8emr!lwv HAM/SWL BBS (HBBS) 614-457-4227.. 300/1200 bps We haven't inherited the world from our parents, but borrowed it from our children.
rupley@arizona.edu (John Rupley) (10/26/87)
In article <1902@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > in article <31219@sun.uucp>, chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) says: > > <long flame war about copyrights and authors posting copyrighted software to > the net deleted, in which one person says that if the author is stupid enuf > to post it to the net, the author really doesn't have much to say about > what you do with his creation, and Chuq saying "What about the law?"> > > > Theft is theft. If you break the law, you break the law. You can rationalize > > all you want, but the bottom line is that you are a thief. > > And of course Congressman Greg Tarver (D. Shreveport) is a criminal because > back in the '60s, he used the white mens room at the bus station (he's black), > and was arrested for violation of a city code forbidding just that. > Talk about morality and ethics if you like. But don't interject The Law (in > capital letters) into the conversation. Laws have nothing to do with either > morality, OR ethics. At least we have THAT lesson left over from the civil The Law _is_ the discussion. The equating of software theft to protest against a possibly inappropriate copyright law appears unreasonable. The civil rights protestors suffered or worked under the threat of arrest or physical harm. They were breaking the existing law, intending to be open about it. If you are protesting the coyright law, at least declare to the public what you are doing, and suffer the penalties. Indeed it is possible that some changes would follow. If you break the copyright law surreptitiosly, this would appear to be theft. John Rupley uucp: ..ihnp4!arizona!rupley voice: 602-325-4533
ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) (10/28/87)
|onto others (Kermit is not supposed to be used within any military application |for example). But why refuse to allow ones source to be distributed over Well, if you read the Kermit book by Frank da Cruz, it is worded more like: We hope you will use Kermit in the spirit it is offered and not for agression, opression, discrimination or nationalism. Obviously unenforceable, so it is between you and your conscience. Ken