A very nice comment on the copyright state. However I felt the urge to
answer since I don't think in the same way as you do. probably because we
have two diffrent legal systems when it comes to this. For me the user is
in the centre, for you it probably is the company. Anyway...
>1) Copyright in software, like copyright of books and songs and pictures,
>lasts a long time. It depends somewhat on whether or not the country has
>adopted the Berne Convention or some other international agreement(s)
>but *generally* the copyright persists for 50 years or more.
Correct. That's why we can't download the latest books from the net but
just the old ones.
>2) Technically, you infringe the copyright if you are using the
>software in violation of the original agreement under which it was sold
>by its maker. That means technically you can be sued if, for example,
>you have copied the software you bought onto two computers when
>the licence specifies one, or if you have made two backup disks if
>only one was allowed. You could certainly be sued if you sold your
>personal copy of the software to somebody else but had kept a copy
>of it on your own hard disk, or if you sold your old computer with
>programs loaded on it but kept the registered copy yourself.
Not correct. I can create how many backups I want of the licensed program.
No matter what the package for the program said I can NEVER loose this
right. Just as I can't loose any other right that the law gives me by
signing any sort of paper or other agreement. I can't however use the
program in more than one computer at a time.
so running Win 3.x on both my computers aren't a crime since I never run it
at the same time on both of them. (I have licenses anyway)
>THEREFORE, many recyclers of old software are breaking the laws.
No, that's not correct. I can sell them if I want to. Just as long as I
remove my own copy/copies.
I do have to own a license, otherwise I can't sell it of course.
>4) If the company which made the software went bankrupt years
>ago, chances are nobody has clear title to the rights. And even if
>someone did, they are unlikely to feel violated by an infringement.
Yes, but one should ask if the program could instead be released as free.
making it impossible to make pirate copies of it. Since the company
wouldn't get any money out of it they would only get good PR and no money
would be lost.
>5) If the company does still exist (including companies which
>were bought out by another company which now owns its assets),
>the success of any suit is likely to depend on whether the company
>has suffered any material damage or financial loss by illegal use
>of the software. I suspect even a litigious type would not sue
>somebody for illegal use of Awnings 1.0 if the program now
>being sold is Awnings 9.2. If the program can no longer be
>purchased, is no longer supported by its makers, and can be
>found in factory-sealed packages in your local dollar store for
>$2.00, odds are very much against anyone bothering to sue or
>winning if they tried.
I doubt the court would even consider such a case. I believe several 100 of
dollars most be at stake for a court to take on this type of case (at the
least).
There aren't enough courts as it is, why bother them with small ammounts of
money "stolen" for a value of perhaps 20 dollars?
>I also have *illegal* copies of software
>which I bought for $1.00 at a garage sale or rescued from
>somebody's trash which I would feel comfortable describing
>as "abandonware".
I don't understand what you mean by illegal copies? If you bouth genuine
copies from someone that owned the program (or infact a license) earlier
you can not have made something illegal.
>Finally, I must put in my 2 cents on the subject of discussing
>the issue on this list. To the best of my knowledge, it is not
>illegal to talk or write about matters which may themselves
>be illegal.
Yes, it's not illegal but perhaps it will give some sort of trouble with
the ISP?
Also posting the link to a website where we can download the program is
perhaps not the smartest thing to do.
>Most people would recognize that the owner of a list, or of a
>server on which the list is archived, is NOT responsible for
>the opinions (and even less for the acts!) of the people who
>subscribe. The list-owner could be *accused* of inciting
>others to commit a crime but the accusation would have no
>basis in fact unless he or she actually advocated software
>piracy.
A diffrent in laws between countries. In some countries it's the owner of a
BBS/mailing list that has the responisbility for what is written on them.
Perhaps not in many countries but I know that I could get in trouble if I
ever start up my BBS and someone entered it and put out alot of racist
coments on it (or something else that's illegal).
Many homepages (companys/organisation/govermental) in Sweden have removed
there "chat" cababilties since they can get into trouble for it.
A real stupid law since the telecomunication company could as easily be
blamed.
In Germany the ISPs (atleast CompuServe) got into trouble for letting
pornographic material pass through the system to the end users. I even
think it led to prison for the boss, perhaps someone more familuar with the
case can enlighten us?
>I have heard of
>prosecutions of people who were selling pirated copies of
>current software, which is a clear case of theft.
Once again not so clear, I can sell to my friends if I want to and will NOT
get into any trouble for it. (Proven on several occasions)
If I advertise in the newspaper I will probably not get into any trouble
anyway but I can atleast be convicted for that.
Before Sweden joined the European Union there wasn't even a law against
copying computer programs. Those where the days! :)
>The folks who made the equipment sold it to
>somebody who acquired full rights in it, including the right
>to sell it to somebody else; the folks who made the software
>had the clever idea of selling their product to the user while
>claiming they retained the right to determine what happened
>to it in perpetuity but had no responsibility for its quality
>or useability!
Claimed and do are two diffrent things all together. I withhold I can
buy/sell an old license to/from whoever I want.
If the US and Candian (or any toher country for that matter) laws makes it
possible for companys to REDUCE the ammount of freedom you got I wouldn't
call that a real democracy.
>Think about it: could an automobile maker these days get away
>with selling cars under these conditions:
No, but the strange thing is that the garanty doesn't come with the car
here in Sweden (except for the last 2 years that we have on all products by
the law.)
A statment from M$ (or any other company) that I can only return the
product in 90 days or so is therefor not legimit and have NO importance for
my license. I repeat: I can NEVER loose my rights, only gain more. (Ex.
three years of garanty instead of two, i can never get one year.)
>Read the fine print of those software licences, and THEN tell me
>who's the thief.
Perhaps in other countries, but I often don't care about them since I know
my rights anyway and I can't loose any of them. I doubt you can in any
country, but the foundation for those rights are diffrent.
//Bernie
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
