Sparkware
| reply to Melchior
Re: Are they even able to do that?
Here's to the grand old days of BBSing!
Sparky
Father of QWK |
|
RichMark
join:2001-05-10
Morgan Hill, CA
| reply to Rhobite
Say Hey-
Read on just a bit more... especially the phrase
==> for purposes such as criticism ==
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
-Rich |
|
buulshityou gotmynam
@rr.com |  reply to dave
The correct analogy would be if you were to start photocopying the book in the bookstore.
('Fair use' of course would allow small extracts, as long as you could get the bookstore to agree.)
You are way off base on this. |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to RichMark
It may be legal to possess the software, or even distribute snippets of code under fair use. But I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to copy the entire source code, which is what happens when you download it. This is similar to the library, where it's technically illegal for you to photocopy an entire book. But in that case the library staff usually looks the other way.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
CornWhole1
@swbell.ne | reply to Jacek
Downloading/Seeing the code may not fall under copyright law, it may fall under trade secret law? I'm not sure though. |
|
rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | reply to Sparkware
Amen, my brothers. This talk reminds me of just how long I've been doing this stuff.
What a long strange trip it's been.:) |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to Jacek
So many misconceptions here...
Downloading the code is a violation of copyright law. Possessing or using an unauthorized copy is a violation of copyright law, just ask any business that's been raided by the BSA. Distributing it is CERTAINLY against the law. And it's copyright law, not trade secret law. That's something different.
Dave isn't "way off base," he's got it exactly right. This situation is no different than photocopying a book in a library or book store.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM | reply to Logan 5
I just tossed a Qmodem box out a couple of months ago. Traded emails with John Freil a couple of years ago. He runs an ISP in Iowa now. |
|
DadeMurphy
Rbettenc
Premium
join:2002-07-25
Danvers, MA
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| reply to IANAL BIPOOTV
I'd just like to point out that you are not making the copy, you are requesting that someone else make a copy and send it to you.
Using the bookstore analogy again, it would be like calling your friend that is at the bookstore that has a copying machine, asking him to make copies of a book for you then having him send them through the mail to you, so you have not made the copy but the system uploading it has.
--
Asus A7N8X, Athlon XP 2500+ Unlocked Barton, 768MB Melco PC2700, Win 2K, 3 Case Fans, DD Maze 3, Z-Chip WB, Eheim 1250 pump |
|
HeyYa
@mindspring.com | reply to Camelot One
Simply put: It's illegal to obtain something you never rightfully had access to. That's like saying, I'll download 10000 songs from people, and it was their fault, not mine. |
|
ionweb
@mi.cha | reply to djrobsd
I believe T.A.G was based off of the WWIV bbs, which was a sort of open source at the time. |
|
Jacek
@198.208.x.x
| reply to HeyYa
There are numerous precedents that might make it actually legal. One of the latest examples involves web site www.blueovalnews.com which posted secret Ford Motor Company documents that were damaging to the automaker. Ford was trying to fight the web site in court claiming, that the documents belonged to Ford, were trade secrets and copyrighted materials that were stolen from Ford by some disgruntled employee and should never get into the hands of the guy who published them. In the first instance and in the appeal FORD LOST and dropped the case !!!. In both cases judges gave verdict which in effect said, that it is Ford responsibility to find the guilty employee who have stolen the materials and then prosecute them. The guy who posted them was cleared from all the charges. I happen to disagree with this, since the web site was posting materials that were in fact stolen but I'm not the law 
JM |
|
Hagrinas
@pacbell.n
| reply to GeminiCub4U
It's perfectly legal for them to send you a letter if that's what you are asking. Unless they are making illegal threats, they have every right to do so.
As for copyright law, they own the code. If you knowingly download it, it's illegal. The only exception would be if you have permission.
In general, people are confused about what is legal and not legal. Prior to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it was illegal to download files without permission, and illegal to upload them too. There was never a 24 hour rule, but there is a fair use rule; it would not apply to this case, but it would allow you to use portions of copyrighted material for educational use, magazine articles, etc. but you could not reprint a substantial portion of a copyrighted work.
As for music and software, you could copy it for backup purposes and for the purpose of changing the media, (such as transfer to hard disk) for the purpose of getting it to work on your machine. In the famous Sony Betamax case, courts ruled that you could copy an entire work, such as a movie that was broadcast on TV, so that you can watch it later (personal use only.) Logically, copying a movie from a broadcast or from a tape you rented or borrowed all serves the same purpose -- you had the right to view or hear the material, but you chose to do it at a later time. The same would hold true for copying a CD you borrowed. Not all of these were upheld (or even brought up) in any court. But it was not generally considered a problem for personal use.
Logically, downloading a song from the Internet does not seem much different. But the "on demand" nature was a problem for the recording industry, and it's all moot because the DMCA makes it illegal to upload or download music without permission from the copyright holder. That was an explicit change in copyright law.
You may have heard or read in the papers that the industry was only going after people who made things available for upload. This was not because downloading is legal. It's because it's an easier first step, and it's easier to make a legal case. In that case, they know that the songs are on your computer because you made them available. So it's easy for them to prove something. If you merely download, they don't know what's on your computer, and it's technically more difficult for them to track you. They can hunt for people who make things available for upload, but they would have to check the logs of those folks to try to find out if you downloaded and they still have no proof it's on your computer. But that does not make the download legal.
Before the DMCA, if you owned a CD and you downloaded an MP3 of a tune from the CD for your convenience (instead of just copying it from your CD,) chances are that a court would not have considered that you broke any law. That might have technically changed under the DMCA (I'm far from an expert on it but I think it changed) but I still doubt that anybody would prosecute you for it. |
|
Hagrinas
@pacbell.n | reply to CornWhole1
There are trade secret laws, but once something gets posted, it's no longer a secret. It's still copyrighted, though. |
|
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Rhobite
said by Rhobite  :
So many misconceptions here...
Downloading the code is a violation of copyright law. Possessing or using an unauthorized copy is a violation of copyright law, just ask any business that's been raided by the BSA. Distributing it is CERTAINLY against the law. And it's copyright law, not trade secret law. That's something different.
Dave isn't "way off base," he's got it exactly right. This situation is no different than photocopying a book in a library or book store.
Define un-authorized copy. May I not make a copy of any media I already own? I believe that's called fair use, and the dmca is trying to trample it.
Businesses aren't raided by the bsa. They are not a law enforcement agency and have to prove their case like anyone else. The bsa is simply a collections agency.
What if someone decides to take the source code and make t-shirts? The cat's out of the bag, your trying to diffuse the bomb after it's already went off.
Regarding photocopying a book in a library, I guess children are no longer able to do school book reports. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by tomkb :
Define un-authorized copy. May I not make a copy of any media I already own? I believe that's called fair use, and the dmca is trying to trample it.
Downloading the Windows source code is making an un-authorized copy unless MS gives you the thumbs up to do so. (Running Windows only gives you limited rights to the executable version, not the source.)
If you're talking about the music sidetrack, then downloading a copyrighted music file isn't allowed even if you own a physical media copy. (Unless, of course, the copyright holder gives you the thumbs up to do so.)
If you take a physical media copy that you own and make a backup copy or rip it to an electronic copy, that's ok so long as it's for your use only. (The minute you share it with anyone else, you're out of Fair Use territory.)
said by tomkb :
Businesses aren't raided by the bsa. They are not a law enforcement agency and have to prove their case like anyone else. The bsa is simply a collections agency.
The BSA has long been active in RIAA-style raids. The basic scenario is that someone rats out a company. The company is then sternly told to provide the BSA with documentation (licenses) that they own all of the software they are running. If they can't find some, they risk being sued. (IIRC, I'm a bit fuzzy on the penalty.)
said by tomkb :
What if someone decides to take the source code and make t-shirts? The cat's out of the bag, your trying to diffuse the bomb after it's already went off.
Microsoft still owns the copyright on the code and they would be able to prosecute anyone using their code in an unauthorized manner. To give a slightly different example: What if I were to take a photo of Mickey Mouse from the web and make some T-Shirts from it. After all, it's online so it must be fair game, right?
said by tomkb :
Regarding photocopying a book in a library, I guess children are no longer able to do school book reports.
AFAIK, you can still photocopy passages of a book in a library and still fall within Fair Use. If you decide to photocopy major portions (or all) of it, though, you would likely cross out of Fair Use territory.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
Evoluder
join:2002-09-15
Woodstock, GA | reply to djrobsd
WWIV RULES! |
|
dasesq
join:2001-10-07
Long Beach, CA |  reply to jackknife
 |
|
dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| reply to weebl
said by weebl:
I would have thought, as I already own a copy of their software, that I ought to be able to look at the source code. After all it's just what I own in another form.
Technically, you do not own a copy of their code; you own a license to use the code in the manner they permit. Check that license and you will see it prohibits reverse-engineering, decompiling or pretty much anything that will show you the source. As for looking at the source you downloaded, it is protected by trade secret laws and might be considered "stolen property"; you would have to destroy it if asked and Microsoft is clearly asking.
Copyright actually prohibits much of what the average person thinks they can do with most intellectual property. It is just not worth it for most people to enforce that copyright but the RIAA and Microsoft do have the incentive (and the lawyers) to do so. |
|
jwcrim
join:2001-12-09
Wilton, CT | reply to Rhobite
"Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying"
Seen by who? |
|
