Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright

2016-07-09 Thread Rich Mellor (RWAP) 
 

> On July 9, 2016 at 5:41 PM Lee Privett  wrote:
>
>
> There is an interesting bit on copyright that's list four things relating
> to Software. One covers the code as literary, the other covers the output
> from code as far as I can ascertain.
>
> The code is a literary work
> The on-screen display could be an artistic work
> The soundtracks are musical works
> Moving images can be protected as a film and so on
>
> It goes on to cover non-literal copying of software, full article here.
> http://www.inbrief.co.uk/intellectual-property/copyright-protection-for-software/
>
> For me there is no question, it's copyrighted unless there evidence that is
> not. Qliberator is a case in point, it's copyright protected until both
> authors state it can be public domain.
>
> Now it is interesting for a discussion perspective about non-literal
> copying if a protected programme is hacked and the software no longer has
> its anti copying protection then effectively it's not the same software
> anymore.
>

I am fairly certain that just bypassing the copy protection would fail the
substantial parts test (and any of hte other tests) as it would be easy to prove
on a byte by byte comparison that there were only very limited changes to the
original code.
 
Arguably it would be harder to prove that some of my MKII software breached
copyright under these rules (had I not originally obtained permission) - because
the original code can no longer easily be proven - eg, substantial changes to
D-Day and War In the East, which were originally SuperBASIC programs, then I
re-wrote large sections in native machine code, added a large amount of my own
code and then compiled them in Turbo - although here there is the issue of
access to sources could easily be proven, as the sources (SuperBASIC) were
provided in the originals.  I am not sure whether Nemesis and possibly some of
the other Talent adventures would be viewed in this light, as they were written
in Quill, so had to be de-compiled, changed and then re-compiled as a
Q-liberated program - leaving very little to compare apart from the actual text
on screen.

That said, both myself and Richard Alexander (when my programs were published by
CGH Services) always felt that it was only fair to pay royalties on sales to the
original copyright holders, or to offer my version as an upgrade to people who
proved they had the original.
 
 
Rich Mellor
RWAP Software
www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
www.sellmyretro.com
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright

2016-07-09 Thread Lee Privett 
There is an interesting bit on copyright that's list four things relating
to Software. One covers the code as literary, the other covers the output
from code as far as I can ascertain.

The code is a literary work
The on-screen display could be an artistic work
The soundtracks are musical works
Moving images can be protected as a film and so on

It goes on to cover non-literal copying of software, full article here.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/intellectual-property/copyright-protection-for-software/

For me there is no question, it's copyrighted unless there evidence that is
not. Qliberator is a case in point, it's copyright protected until both
authors state it can be public domain.

Now it is interesting for a discussion perspective about non-literal
copying if a protected programme is hacked and the software no longer has
its anti copying protection then effectively it's not the same software
anymore.


On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 at 12:51, Colin McKay 
wrote:

> When a member of the Bristol Group, I remember being told that any program
> lodged in the QL system automatically became public domain. Can that be
> confirmed?
>
> Whilst searching the web, one site virtually stated that anything a person
> produces is automatically subject to copyright. Another site stated that
> copyrights can be registered. Do any of the QL programs expressly claim
> copyright? Compare the situation with that of books, many display the word
> 'copyright' on an introductory page.
>
> Entering the sordid topic of coin, it is difficult to imagine that it would
> profit any originator of a QL program to seek recompense from the courts
> for
> infringement of copyright. Consider the value of past sales, future
> possible
> sales, and legal costs. The case would have to be based on the miss-selling
> of a number of programs to create a sufficiently large claim.
>
> I have used Text87 almost since its availability. In those far back days I
> spoke to a member of the firm which produced it, and he explained some of
> its facilities. Later my memory failed, and I could not reconstruct the
> steps from the manual. From this, I suggest that whilst the program is very
> good, its value is diminished from the fact that its manual is seriously
> deficient. I suspect that situation could exist for many QL programs. They
> are written by insiders for the use of insiders.
>
> As regards the QL dying, to me the main factor for this is the inability of
> the QL community to create a system of durable software which would enable
> the purchaser of a machine (emulator) to instantly have a day-to-day
> coherent usable collection of programs not prone to enthusiasts
> ideosyncrasies.
>
> Colin
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ql-Users [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of
> ql-users-requ...@lists.q-v-d.com
> Sent: 09 July 2016 10:39
> To: ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com
> Subject: Ql-Users Digest, Vol 149, Issue 17
>
> Send Ql-Users mailing list submissions to
> ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.q-v-d.com/listinfo.cgi/ql-users-q-v-d.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ql-users-requ...@lists.q-v-d.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ql-users-ow...@lists.q-v-d.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Ql-Users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Withdrawal of my personal SoftwarePreservation
> Project
>   (Norman Dunbar)
>2. Re: Withdrawal of my  personalSoftware
> Preservation
> Project
>   (Norman Dunbar)
>3. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project
>   (Derek Stewart)
>4. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation   Project
>   (Richard Howe)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:09:15 +0100
> From: Norman Dunbar 
> To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
> Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal   Software
> PreservationProject
> Message-ID: <9e7f06d5-7bb9-400c-a399-ad5524b62...@dunbar-it.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Still a verb. It's an action.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
>
> I wish I could get out of the sun! But it's too sunny and way to hot for a
> Jock like me!
>
>
> Cheers,
> Norm.
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:11:35 +0100
> From: Norman Dunbar 
> To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
> Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of mypersonalSoftware
> PreservationProject
> Message-ID: <3860c8a4-f79d-4470-bc70-67312f05c...@dunbar-it.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright

2016-07-09 Thread Rich Mellor (RWAP) 
 

> On July 9, 2016 at 4:26 PM Wolf  wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> > Entering the sordid topic of coin, it is difficult to imagine that it would
> > profit any originator of a QL program to seek recompense from the courts for
> > infringement of copyright. Consider the value of past sales, future possible
> > sales, and legal costs. The case would have to be based on the miss-selling
> > of a number of programs to create a sufficiently large claim.
>
> Think:
>
> - statutory damages
> - punitive damages
>
> depending on where you sue...
>
> OK, 'nuff said on that subject.
> Wolfgang
> ___
> QL-Users Mailing List
 
 
Copyright exists as soon as someone creates an item.  They are the owner of the
rights to that item - be it a physical item, some program code, a painting or
even a turn of phrase (this is why it has been generally referred to in
legislation as intellectual property).
 
Many people originally proved copyright by posting a copy of an item to
themselves, so that it is dated by a third party in a sealed envelope - just in
case they ever needed to prove that they created the item before someone else.
 
There used to be some countries which demanded registration of copyright but
since countries signed up to the Berne convention, they all agreed to do away
with this, but most countries retain the ability to voluntarily register
copyright if you wish (similar to posting a copy to yourself).
 
As for ever bringing court action - most countries will actually prosecute the
person on your behalf, as it is seen as a criminal offence under international
law; so there is no question of cost for the copyright holder.

Does QL software have copyright messages?  The answer is a resounding YES - out
of all the stuff I have preserved, there is probably less than 5% which has no
statement in the code as to copyright, or who wrote the program.  It is
generally clearly stipulated in the boot program, loading screen, manual or the
code itself.

As to what you do with the stuff which has nothing to indicate copyright - who
knows what the intention of the author was  It could have been donated to
the Quanta library, in which case, the terms of their constitution stipulate
that the library was available to members only.  It could have been a program
which appeared in QL World / QL User - which paid for the program listings, so
the rights may well have been transferred to the magazine publisher (all
depending on the terms of the submission and who the publisher was at the time).
 
 
Rich Mellor
RWAP Software
www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
www.sellmyretro.com
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright

2016-07-09 Thread Wolf 


Hi Colin,


When a member of the Bristol Group, I remember being told that any program
lodged in the QL system automatically became public domain. Can that be
confirmed?



No it can't.

Very broadly speaking,  if someone writes a piece of software, then 
someone has a copyright to it - automatically.



(and, yes I'm aware that there are hems and haws and provided this and 
maybe that with the above sentence, but as a general statement it is true.)


WOlfgang
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright

2016-07-09 Thread Dilwyn Jones 

When a member of the Bristol Group, I remember being told that any program
lodged in the QL system automatically became public domain. Can that be
confirmed?
Define "QL system"? Don't understand that, unless what they meant was that 
as soon as you made a program available in some way, widespread piracy meant 
it was inevitable that it would quickly become commonly copied by one and 
all.


Not a remark about the legal situation, but a scenario which you could 
perhaps see happening in practice.


Dilwyn 




-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4627/12585 - Release Date: 07/09/16

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright

2016-07-09 Thread Ralf Reköndt 
Yes, why Fred Toussi does not make this program freeware and why he does not 
make the way public, how T87 saves its documents...


I will never understand. Noone sells it today, nor does anyone develops 
driver for it. Is this the way? Surely not.


Cheers...Ralf

- Original Message - 
From: "Colin McKay" 

I have used Text87 almost since its availability. In those far back days I
spoke to a member of the firm which produced it, and he explained some of
its facilities. Later my memory failed, and I could not reconstruct the
steps from the manual. From this, I suggest that whilst the program is 
very

good, its value is diminished from the fact that its manual is seriously
deficient. I suspect that situation could exist for many QL programs. They
are written by insiders for the use of insiders. 


___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright

2016-07-09 Thread Peter Graf 
Colin McKay wrote:

> As regards the QL dying, to me the main factor for this is the inability of
> the QL community to create a system of durable software which would enable
> the purchaser of a machine (emulator) to instantly have a day-to-day
> coherent usable collection of programs not prone to enthusiasts
> ideosyncrasies.

For me the main factor is: Who is writing QL software at all?

Peter

___
QL-Users Mailing List

[Ql-Users] Copyright

2016-07-09 Thread Colin McKay 
When a member of the Bristol Group, I remember being told that any program
lodged in the QL system automatically became public domain. Can that be
confirmed?

Whilst searching the web, one site virtually stated that anything a person
produces is automatically subject to copyright. Another site stated that
copyrights can be registered. Do any of the QL programs expressly claim
copyright? Compare the situation with that of books, many display the word
'copyright' on an introductory page.

Entering the sordid topic of coin, it is difficult to imagine that it would
profit any originator of a QL program to seek recompense from the courts for
infringement of copyright. Consider the value of past sales, future possible
sales, and legal costs. The case would have to be based on the miss-selling
of a number of programs to create a sufficiently large claim.

I have used Text87 almost since its availability. In those far back days I
spoke to a member of the firm which produced it, and he explained some of
its facilities. Later my memory failed, and I could not reconstruct the
steps from the manual. From this, I suggest that whilst the program is very
good, its value is diminished from the fact that its manual is seriously
deficient. I suspect that situation could exist for many QL programs. They
are written by insiders for the use of insiders.

As regards the QL dying, to me the main factor for this is the inability of
the QL community to create a system of durable software which would enable
the purchaser of a machine (emulator) to instantly have a day-to-day
coherent usable collection of programs not prone to enthusiasts
ideosyncrasies.

Colin



-Original Message-
From: Ql-Users [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of
ql-users-requ...@lists.q-v-d.com
Sent: 09 July 2016 10:39
To: ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com
Subject: Ql-Users Digest, Vol 149, Issue 17

Send Ql-Users mailing list submissions to
ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.q-v-d.com/listinfo.cgi/ql-users-q-v-d.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ql-users-requ...@lists.q-v-d.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
ql-users-ow...@lists.q-v-d.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Ql-Users digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Withdrawal of my personal SoftwarePreservation
Project
  (Norman Dunbar)
   2. Re: Withdrawal of my  personalSoftwarePreservation
Project
  (Norman Dunbar)
   3. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project
  (Derek Stewart)
   4. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation   Project
  (Richard Howe)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:09:15 +0100
From: Norman Dunbar 
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal   Software
PreservationProject
Message-ID: <9e7f06d5-7bb9-400c-a399-ad5524b62...@dunbar-it.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Still a verb. It's an action.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

I wish I could get out of the sun! But it's too sunny and way to hot for a
Jock like me!


Cheers,
Norm.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

--

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:11:35 +0100
From: Norman Dunbar 
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of mypersonalSoftware
PreservationProject
Message-ID: <3860c8a4-f79d-4470-bc70-67312f05c...@dunbar-it.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Whoops!

To infringe, verb. 
An infringement noun. 
Apologies.

Cheers,
Norm.


--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

--

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 08:41:13 +0100
From: Derek Stewart 
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software
Preservation Project
Message-ID: <5780aa99.9000...@q40.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Hi Richard,

I bought a copy of Master Spy in 1989 from TK Computaware, aftwer a review
in QL Wolrd.

I must say that Master Spy was one of best QL software I have ever had. 
I am sorry for not buying it direct from you.

Regards,

Derek

On 07/07/16 16:16, Richard Howe wrote:
> Hi
>
> I don't often reply in the forum but I do watch it, and this thread 
> caught my attention.
>
> Issues:
>   1.  Integrity.
>   2.  Letting go of personal attacks by trolls, and the trolls 
> themselves.
>   3.  Copyright.
>
> 1.  Integrity.
> Those who appreciate the value of copyright do so because it is 
> 'right' to morally and financially support those who give energy to 
> projects that interest

[Ql-Users] Copyright

2016-07-07 Thread Colin McKay 
Has copyright in the electronic sense been investigated?

An author publishes an article, and an individual makes one copy of it for
only his use. That is allowable, but there could be qualifications of the
situation.

 

Colin McKay

 

 

___
QL-Users Mailing List