brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (11/04/90)
In article <16309@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > In the comp.sources.games posting, Volume 11, Issue 52, Rich Burridge > posts an othello game called Reve. In all of the files is the line: > > You are forbidden from using Reve as is, or in a modified state, in > > any tournaments, without the permission of the authors. [ Sean claims that this is unenforceable ] > It's not so important what is forbidden as the idea that some > arbitrary behavior can be forbidden without a prior agreement. This is > a dangerous idea, one that can lead down a very dark road. Once you have received an unsolicited copy of Reve, you do, indeed, own that copy. You can therefore do a lot of things with it, like compile it, use it, make a backup copy, etc., without permission of the authors. That doesn't mean you have the right to copy it further. Fair use may let you do so in some cases, but a judgment of fair use depends heavily on the exact situation. Copying a program so as to submit it in a tournament probably doesn't constitute fair use. In this case, the authors have granted you the right to distribute the sources, with certain qualifications. One of those qualifications is that you may not enter the program in a tournament. Sorry, Sean, but that's perfectly enforceable. You're right that people can't force contracts onto you. That's why shrink-wrap licenses have been held to be invalid. But we're not talking about a license here. The authors are simply limiting their exclusive copyright, and they can do so in any way they want. ---Dan You may copy and distribute this article for profit if you are not named Sean.
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (11/05/90)
I am crossposting this to gnu.misc.discuss because the LPF people might be interested in some of the misunderstandings people seem to have about the limitations of copyright law. If it's inappropriate, let me know and I'll send a cancel and repost. brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: |In this case, the authors have granted you the right to distribute the |sources, with certain qualifications. One of those qualifications is |that you may not enter the program in a tournament. |Sorry, Sean, but that's perfectly enforceable. It's not perfectly anything. Such use comes under the provisions of use, not copyright. I can take a disk with a legally obtained copy of the program, and insert it in a machine for the purpose of playing a tournament round. You should know that the act of copying a program into ram or a cpu for the purpose of executing the program is a necessary step in the use of that program. Copyright law cannot forbid you to do this as long as your copy is legally obtained. You cannot sell someone a book and forbid them to open it. This is a use issue, not a copyright issue. |But we're not talking about a license here. The authors are simply |limiting their exclusive copyright, and they can do so in any way they The problem here is people don't seem to understand exactly what rights copyright law can limit. See a copyright lawyer if you don't believe that copyrights cannot limit use. Once you own a copy of something, the author can't dictate your use of it; you may use it in a competitive business, to engage in practices the author doesn't ethically agree with, or even to participate in an othello tournament. Copyright law was designed to protect the ability to profit from a unique work. It does this by limiting the right to copy and or publically show a work (1). Recently, two new uses of copyrights have appeared in the computer world: conditional redistribution, and use clauses. Conditional redistribution, such as the GPL or Dan's copyright, is a tool well founded in the spirit of copyright law. Instead of protecting profits, in this case, it protects against profits. Use clauses, on the other hand, do not fall into the realm of copyright law at all. Some shareware authors have used these to demand payment for use. Some freeware authors have used it to deny uses they disagree with. None of these restrictions are valid. Copyright law does not limit these activities. Only a license can do that. Even so, we must not ignore these claims because of the litigious nature of the business. Suppose a large corporation or wealthy individual starts putting these use clauses in their copyright and then sues individuals for violating it. Most people cannot fight a lawsuit, even one based on vapor. Thus it's important that people know what rights authors are allowed to take away from them, and what rights cannot be taken away. Otherwise, the people with the money and lawyers will eventually force us to behave in ways that are convenient to them. Look at how Lotus has bent the interpretation of copyright law. If you don't think it can be done, start reading the papers. |You may copy and distribute this article for profit if you are not named Sean. Small excerpts are permitted under Fair Use :-P. Sean (1) The public showing of a work, such as showing a movie in a theater, or showing HBO in a bar, does not have a good analogue in the computer software world. Running a program on a machine, even if thousands of people are looking at the machine, is not displaying the work unless some sort of copyrighted display is visible. -- *** Sean Casey <sean@s.ms.uky.edu> *** ``Aaaaaa!'' -James Brown
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/06/90)
In article <21712:Nov412:17:2190@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > In this case, the authors have granted you the right to distribute the > sources, with certain qualifications. One of those qualifications is > that you may not enter the program in a tournament. So? That means you can enter it in a tournament so long as you don't distribute copies of it. Maybe it's enforcable, but it sure isn't a useful restriction. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (11/06/90)
In article <sean.657750642@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > I am crossposting this to gnu.misc.discuss because the LPF people might > be interested in some of the misunderstandings people seem to have about > the limitations of copyright law. Sean, the only incorrect statement has been your assertion that the Reve restrictions are unenforceable. As Peter says, though, we're both right in what we're trying to say. You're right that it is impossible to restrict *use* without a contract; I'm right that it you can place arbitrary limitations on *copying*. The question is whether Reve's restrictions on copying apply to the use of a program in a tournament. I was under the impression that at least one major computer Othello tournament requires participants to submit programs via e-mail. This is not covered by fair use, so the Reve restrictions apply. > Conditional > redistribution, such as the GPL or Dan's copyright, To paraphrase Michael Berch: The GPL says it's a license, so it's a license. Shrink-wrap licenses such as the GPL are generally unenforceable. This is contract law, not copyright law. Please don't draw any analogy between my copyright limitations and the GNU Public License. > |You may copy and distribute this article for profit if you are not named Sean. > Small excerpts are permitted under Fair Use :-P. Small excerpts? You quoted a huge chunk of the article. The fair use guideline you want to apply here is the one about the nature of the copying. You're not making any money off the copying, and you're certainly not taking away from my profits from the original, so a judge would almost certainly rule it fair use. Try selling it, though, and I'll sue your pants off. :-) ---Dan
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (11/07/90)
My apologies if anyone thinks I was comparing GNU's copyright with Dan's. While they are both copyrights which permit limited redistribution, they are worlds apart in what they do and what they are trying to achieve. Sean -- *** Sean Casey <sean@s.ms.uky.edu> *** ``HaaAhh Huhhhhhh!'' -James Brown (quote corrected by oz@nexus.yorku.ca)