Re: AIX documentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

   > This entire conversation is completely absurd.

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:

Perhaps.
But she did ask "Am I legally allowed to resell these?" - which is rather a
different question from 'If you were me, would you just go ahead and sell
these?' (My answer to the latter question, BTW, is 'Yes.')


Thank you.
We don't agree on all the details, but it's a worthwhile discussion when 
kept factually accurate.
For example, there is no lack of copyright in "abandonware", but it is 
true that some things will not be pursued.



She should definitely sell them.  On THAT, we all agree.
Whether that is completely legal is unclear, but on a 26 year old manual, 
the likelihood of repercussions is miniscule.


It turns out that they are NOT materials created by the people giving the 
courses, but instead are [excerpted?] photocopies of manuals put out by 
IBM.  Therefore, license issues are rather unlikely.


Operating in good faith, she can ASSUME that the course purveyors had 
authorization for making those copies.




Yes, I know that in so carefully parsing her statement, I'm acting like a
lawyer. So sue me! ;-)


What she should do, and what is technically legal overlap, but are not 
completely congruent.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

RE: AIX documentation

[Electronics Plus via cctalk]

Well, I look at it this way. I have old copies of OS that have been opened
and prob registered somewhere, like old Sun and Solaris. Even Microsoft
stuff was never a problem, although I would not go so far as to pull license
stickers off recycled computers. Never got in trouble for selling those. So
I doubt there will be a problem over these, since they do not deal
specifically with security or anything. A 26 year old manual is not going to
excite anyone too much.

Cindy

Re: AIX documentation

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: geneb

> This entire conversation is completely absurd.

Perhaps.

But she did ask "Am I legally allowed to resell these?" - which is rather a
different question from 'If you were me, would you just go ahead and sell
these?' (My answer to the latter question, BTW, is 'Yes.')

Yes, I know that in so carefully parsing her statement, I'm acting like a
lawyer. So sue me! ;-)

Noel

Re: AIX documentation

[geneb via cctalk]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:


   > From: geneb

   > A lot of /completely irrelevant/ technicalities, especially considering
   > the material in question is a physical object, not software.

Doesn't matter. The various matters I raised (copyright, restricted rights,
trade secret, and ownership) apply to printed documentation as well as
software.

You're right, it doesn't matter. Maybe next time, items will be sold 
without stirring up the Corner Case Cabal.


This entire conversation is completely absurd.

g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: AIX documentation

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: geneb

> A lot of /completely irrelevant/ technicalities, especially considering
> the material in question is a physical object, not software.

Doesn't matter. The various matters I raised (copyright, restricted rights,
trade secret, and ownership) apply to printed documentation as well as
software.

> See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

That only applies if the item is i) not a copyright violation (i.e. it's an
authorized copy), ii) legally the property of the entity selling it, etc.

On the first, I have the impression (although I can't find, after some
searching, a formal citation) that it is not legal to sell an un-authorized
copy, even if the seller is not the entity which did the un-authorized
copying. (I.e. if person B makes an un-authorized copy of person A's
copyrighted content - an act which is definitely not legal - and sells said
copy to person C, I don't believe that person C has the right to sell that
un-authorized copy to person D.)

Noel

RE: AIX documentation

[geneb via cctalk]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Electronics Plus via cctalk wrote:



All that being said, the entire contents of the binder is obviously a
photocopy! Sellable or not? Of interest or not?


Sellable.

g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

RE: AIX documentation

[geneb via cctalk]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk wrote:


Folks,

Well I recently retired and was asked to return all training materials 
to my employer. I refused as the contracts included in the front of the 
books clearly stated that these were licenced to me personally not to 
whoever paid for the course, and were not to be passed to any one else, 
including my employer. I wonder if they would have sent me if they 
known? If the materials are meant to be so licenced I would expect them 
to include a specific reference to the licence some where at the front. 
In the case of AIX as folks are still running AIX courses I suspect that 
releasing them to the public may not be legal...


Unless Cindy was the original purchaser of the material, she can do 
basically anything she likes with the material short of violating the 
copyright.  Selling them or giving them away doesn't do that.


g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: AIX documentation

[geneb via cctalk]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:




On 3/12/2017 3:15 PM, Electronics Plus via cctalk wrote:

I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough AIX documentation, but
the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?


I would expect they could be sold just like any other book.



Cindy Croxton
The thread went into a lot of technicalities.  however you mention this is 
A lot of /completely irrelevant/ technicalities, especially considering 
the material in question is a physical object, not software.


See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: AIX documentation

[Mark Linimon via cctalk]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 08:32:41PM -0600, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
> One of the tenants of the ProCD case

tenets?  You must have renters on your mind again.  That NM place maybe?

mcl

RE: AIX documentation

[Sam O'nella via cctalk]

As others said, we're not lawyers so ymmv but I would take it as the same as 
selling a used cd, dvd, software or books. The usual law is we can't copy it. 
So scanning it, if that company or company's intellectual property is still in 
existence they might care. But selling originals is usually ok unless specific 
wording against it, although that's also probably the original owner in 
contract not yourself. 
Ironically I was *just* having a similar thought and self conversation with 
some training materials I just purchased from a used book store.
All the best,
- John
 Original message From: Electronics Plus via cctalk 
 Date: 3/12/17  5:15 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: "'General 
Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'"  Subject: AIX 
documentation 
I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough AIX documentation, but
the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?
 

Re: AIX documentation

[jim stephens via cctalk]

On 3/12/2017 3:15 PM, Electronics Plus via cctalk wrote:

I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough AIX documentation, but
the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?

  


Cindy Croxton
The thread went into a lot of technicalities.  however you mention this 
is for AIX.  I am currently up on IBM and I'd find it odd if there were 
not clear notices in any class document with IBM copyrights, dates, 
etc.  Also if the strings mentioned at length in the other answer thread 
exist, and IBM had anything to do with this (as in they own AIX), the 
owner of the course usually publishes such notices clearly as well.  Not 
absolutely, but every document since IBM lost the copyrights on MVX and 
the like is pretty well done right by their legal department.


Maybe some scans or snaps of the front part of the document of such 
notices we can help more if it isn't clear with what they put there.

thanks
jim

Re: AIX documentation

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:
> AIX documentation, but the trouble is, there are from security classes
> that were taught by private companies. Am I legally allowed to resell 
> these?
>>>
>>> While not a COPYRIGHT issue, it is possible, and not unlikely, that they
>>> were considered to be part of the course work, and that those taking the
>>> course may have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, not to pass them on.
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> Such an agreement would need to be in writing and explicit. Otherwise
>> it's just like a text book which you bought for the class. See below
>> for what you can do.
>
>
> Materials supplied as part of a course, are NOT just like a text book, which
> is commercially available separately.  These materials were apparently never
> available except by enrolling in the course.

Unless they are covered under a separate agreement that's explicit,
Copyright Law applies. Being part of the course isn't magical.

> Sure, such an agreement would have to exit, but not necessarily attached to
> the course workbook.  It could exist as part of the documents that the
> participant signed to REGISTER for the course.
> And, as the appellate court ruled in ProCD V Zeidenberg, it does not have to
> be in writing, nor signed, so long as it is known AT THE TIME that the
> agreement was reached. (not necessarily NOW!)

That gets tricky to enforce. Absent a real, written agreement, the
courts have nothing to enforce. ProCD v Zeidenberg seems to fly in the
face of simple contract law.

> There is no problem with selling the sole copy in terms of COPYRIGHT law.
> Your comments are entirely about the copyright law.  Which is not the issue
> to be concerned about in this case.
>
> The worse problem here is whether the previous owner entered into a licence
> agreement as part of registering for the course.

Yes.  That would be an explicit agreement.

> I have run into such license agreements in registering for commercial
> courses.   ("all materials used in the course . . . ")
>
> Not seeing a license agreement attached to the materials is sufficient to
> show that you had no willful intent to violate it, and that should be enough
> to sell them, in good faith.  But it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Which makes it hard to enforce in court, especially years after the fact.

> (Certainly having a work with the title/verso (copyright) page torn out is
> not the same as it never having had one, of course, but the license
> agreement need never have been physically attached)
>
>
> Remember that ProCD V Zeidenberg was about material that is presumably not
> even copyrightable!  but the courts upheld a violation of license, on a
> shrink-wrap license!  It was a LICENSE lawsuit, not a copyright one,
> although that was also alleged.
>
> http://www.freibrun.com/not-fast-appeals-court-reverses-upholds-shrink-wrap-agreement/
> Zeidenberg bought a retail "single user" copy (not even the multi-user
> version) of a CD-ROM telephone directory.  He then created a website selling
> access to the content from it.
>
> The appellate court explicitly ruled that ProCD did NOT have to print the
> license agreement on the outside of the box.
>
> The licensee does NOT need to sign!
> "A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show
> agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence
> of such a contract."  (about EXACTLY that.)
> (such as the documents regietering for the course!)
> Zeidenberg DID click the "I accept" box.
> If there WAS a license agreement, then it was abject stupidity for the
> licensor of these materials not to embed that information on the item!

Again, that's an explicit, in writing modification of the normal terms
of copyright. Click through licensing has been, I must note, non
uniformly  enforced.

> Personally, I feel that the court gave far too much power to adhesion
> contracts!

Yea. It certainly sounds like it, but I've not looked into the
particulars of that case to know for sure. One of the tenants of the
ProCD case is that the terms must be commercially reasonable and not
otherwise unconscionable which gives a lot of wiggle room for a good
lawyer. Absent seeing any agreement, it's hard to know what the terms
are. And if a number of years have passed since the original material
was distributed, it can be difficult to prove that the person making
the sale has an obligation to follow the original license if it wasn't
provided upon a sale contrary to the original license. It also depends
where you are located (China doesn't enforce click through licenses,
for example).

So there's lots of "yea butt's" here and the specifics of the original
company and License matter a lot. Absent those, it's quite difficult
to know what applies here. Maybe there was a license. Maybe the
licensor still cares. Maybe they can prove it in court. Maybe a simple
sale 

Re: AIX documentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

AIX documentation, but the trouble is, there are from security 
classes that were taught by private companies. Am I legally allowed 
to resell these?

While not a COPYRIGHT issue, it is possible, and not unlikely, that they
were considered to be part of the course work, and that those taking the
course may have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, not to pass them on.


On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Warner Losh wrote:

Such an agreement would need to be in writing and explicit. Otherwise
it's just like a text book which you bought for the class. See below
for what you can do.


Materials supplied as part of a course, are NOT just like a text book, 
which is commercially available separately.  These materials were 
apparently never available except by enrolling in the course.


Sure, such an agreement would have to exit, but not necessarily attached 
to the course workbook.  It could exist as part of the documents that the 
participant signed to REGISTER for the course.
And, as the appellate court ruled in ProCD V Zeidenberg, it does not have 
to be in writing, nor signed, so long as it is known AT THE TIME that the 
agreement was reached. (not necessarily NOW!)


There is no problem with selling the sole copy in terms of COPYRIGHT law.
Your comments are entirely about the copyright law.  Which is not the 
issue to be concerned about in this case.


The worse problem here is whether the previous owner entered into a 
licence agreement as part of registering for the course.


I have run into such license agreements in registering for commercial 
courses.   ("all materials used in the course . . . ")


Not seeing a license agreement attached to the materials is sufficient to 
show that you had no willful intent to violate it, and that should be 
enough to sell them, in good faith.  But it doesn't mean that it doesn't 
exist.


(Certainly having a work with the title/verso (copyright) page torn out 
is not the same as it never having had one, of course, but the license 
agreement need never have been physically attached)



Remember that ProCD V Zeidenberg was about material that is presumably not 
even copyrightable!  but the courts upheld a violation of license, on a 
shrink-wrap license!  It was a LICENSE lawsuit, not a copyright one, 
although that was also alleged.


http://www.freibrun.com/not-fast-appeals-court-reverses-upholds-shrink-wrap-agreement/
Zeidenberg bought a retail "single user" copy (not even the multi-user 
version) of a CD-ROM telephone directory.  He then created a website 
selling access to the content from it.


The appellate court explicitly ruled that ProCD did NOT have to print the 
license agreement on the outside of the box.


The licensee does NOT need to sign!
"A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show 
agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the 
existence of such a contract."  (about EXACTLY that.)

(such as the documents regietering for the course!)
Zeidenberg DID click the "I accept" box.
If there WAS a license agreement, then it was abject stupidity for the 
licensor of these materials not to embed that information on the item!


Personally, I feel that the court gave far too much power to adhesion 
contracts!




IANAL,  "I Ain't No Asshole Lawyer"
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: AIX documentation

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:
>>> I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough AIX documentation,
>>> but
>>> the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by
>>> private
>>> companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
>>
>> i wouldn't see why not.  You aren't NDA'd on anything, and if they are not
>> government issue
>> you own them.
>> IANAL of course.
>
>
> While not a COPYRIGHT issue, it is possible, and not unlikely, that they
> were considered to be part of the course work, and that those taking the
> course may have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, not to pass them on.

Such an agreement would need to be in writing and explicit. Otherwise
it's just like a text book which you bought for the class. See below
for what you can do.

> If there is not a statement about license on them, then it is a reasonably
> safe risk.  The person who took the course, and agreed to any such license
> could be liable.  If they want to take action, then they would have a weak
> case based on not having made the license terms known and included in the
> work.(mens rea, etc.)
>
> Similarly, although post Berne convention upholds copyright on works without
> a copyright notice, failing to have a copyright notice is a really BAD idea.
>
> That doesn't mean that a litigious pubisher won't be a nuisance.
>
>
> If it is a significant amount (many copies, high price each, etc.) then make
> a good faith effort to contact the originator of the materials, and consult
> a real IP lawyer.
>
> Also, be aware that legal advice here is often tainted by our own interests,
> hence the fiction of "abandonware".

Resell: sure. The copyright interest of the seller is extinguished
when you purchase them by whatever means absent an explicit agreement
to the contrary.

Copy and upload the copy: No. Copyright Law would preclude that absent
permission from the current owner of the copyright.

Copy for yourself and then sell: Legal grey area, most likely not
legal, but kinda depends on your local jurisdiction.

Copy and upload to bitkeepers: Possibly the most beneficial thing you
could do. Likely not a lawful copy, thought (see above).

Warner

Re: AIX documentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough AIX documentation, but
the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?


On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
i wouldn't see why not.  You aren't NDA'd on anything, and if they are not 
government issue

you own them.
IANAL of course.


While not a COPYRIGHT issue, it is possible, and not unlikely, that they 
were considered to be part of the course work, and that those taking the 
course may have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, not to pass them on.


If there is not a statement about license on them, then it is a reasonably 
safe risk.  The person who took the course, and agreed to any such license 
could be liable.  If they want to take action, then they would have a weak 
case based on not having made the license terms known and included in the 
work.(mens rea, etc.)


Similarly, although post Berne convention upholds copyright on works 
without a copyright notice, failing to have a copyright notice is a really 
BAD idea.


That doesn't mean that a litigious pubisher won't be a nuisance.


If it is a significant amount (many copies, high price each, etc.) then 
make a good faith effort to contact the originator of the materials, and 
consult a real IP lawyer.


Also, be aware that legal advice here is often tainted by our own 
interests, hence the fiction of "abandonware".


IANAL,
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: AIX documentation

[jim stephens via cctalk]

i wouldn't see why not.  You aren't NDA'd on anything, and if they are 
not government issue

you own them.

IANAL of course.


On 3/12/2017 3:15 PM, Electronics Plus via cctalk wrote:

I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough AIX documentation, but
the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?

  


Cindy Croxton