Copyright and Licensing
Don
news:38e02276...@news.ispchannel.com...
>
> While reading through the various discussions of copyright
> infringement as pertains to the AD&D game manuals I have been struck
> by the absurdity of the argument against (and for) electronic versions
> of printed documents.
>
> If you already own a physical copy of the books contained in the help
> file that comes with the Core Rules 2.0, why shouldn't I be able to
> e-mail you a copy of the help-file version?
Because then corporations couldn't make money off of selling you the same
thing twice, you anti-capitalist you. :-)
> After all you already own a "license" to the copyrighted material.
> All I'm providing you is a copy of your same licensed text in an
> electronic format.
I don't think buying a book gives you a license to use copyrighted material.
When you buy a book, it's yours forever. You can sell it, burn it, give it
away, or do whatever you want with it. Then again, I'm not sure if an
electronic book comes with a 'license' either (like the kind you find in
actual programs).
>(You get to this point when you reverse engineer
> license/copyright notices that tell you that you can't reproduce
> printed documents in electronic format.)
I don't understand what you mean by this. The copyright clearly states that
you're not allowed to reproduce the document by any means. But since you
mean legally getting you hands on the electronic format and giving that to
those who already has the paper book, it does seem extremely stupid to
disallow that.
> After all, its the expression of ideas that is copyrighted, not the
> medium. Thoughts?
I would have to agree with your reasoning (then again, I'm extremely biased
against trademarking/copyrighting/patenting
words/phrases/ideas/expressions/processes - just doesn't sit well with
freedom loving folk like me :-).
But you could take into account that there is a little effort put into
making the electronic format. Not nearly as much as it takes to actually
write the book, but a miniscule amount of monkey-work is necessary. If the
people who pushed the button to create the electronic version are also
getting paid by the profits made by the physical books, then I wouldn't see
any real problem.
- Don
Check out my dice collection at: http://members.xoom.com/dondueck/index.htm
"We did not follow cleverly invented myths when we told you about the power
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
- The Apostle Simon Peter, c66 AD
Ken Witherow
> While reading through the various discussions of copyright
> infringement as pertains to the AD&D game manuals I have been struck
> by the absurdity of the argument against (and for) electronic versions
> of printed documents.
>
> If you already own a physical copy of the books contained in the help
> file that comes with the Core Rules 2.0, why shouldn't I be able to
> e-mail you a copy of the help-file version?
Because copyright allows the copyright owner to determine how the
copyrighted work can be distributed, you can't legally give a copy even in
a different medium to someone else( you have no distribution rights ). At
the same time, if the person is in your gaming group, one could argue it's
a copy for your own personal use( IANAL so I don't know how well it would
fly if actually brought to court ). You also have the right to post a
paragraph or two to comment on under the concept of fair use. TSR and WOTC
own the copyright on their written materials and it is their right to
determine how they will allow it to be distributed and we should respect
that. If I owned the copyright on a work and someone gave it to someone
else who'd already paid for it in a different medium, I wouldn't have a
problem but that doesn't mean TSR/WOTC shouldn't. Buy distributing it in a
manner that you have no legal right to do, you're denying TSR a possible
sale of the core rules CD. Copyright is a tool to promote the development
of intellectual implementations of ideas and gives it's owners the right
to determine how it can be distributed to encourage people to make new
products by allowing them the protection to make money.
I do think due to the lobbying of movie studios and other IP holders,
copyright has gotten WAAAY out of hand. Copyright originally lasted 14
years with an optional 14 more if you wanted them before they entered into
the public domain. Definitely enought to encourage someone to make
new products. Since the film studios, Disney with Mickey Mouse in
particular, didn't want their IP entering the public domain, they lobbied
Congress to increase copyright to 95 years before entering PD( it was set
at 70 years before that and personal copyright now lasts for life ). The
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is yet another measure which
simply favors corporate greed rather than what's doing best for consumers
and is part of an overall push by corporations to remove rights
guaranteed to citizens( along with another beast called the Uniform
Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA), especially concerning
digital information. After all, he who controls information has the power.
> After all you already own a "license" to the copyrighted material.
> All I'm providing you is a copy of your same licensed text in an
> electronic format.
But you don't have the right to distribute it. It's a protection afforded
by copyright to ensure the holder can make money, if possible, from their
work.
> (You get to this point when you reverse engineer
> license/copyright notices that tell you that you can't reproduce
> printed documents in electronic format.)
You can do whatever you want as long as it's for your own personal use. By
a book and burn it or make 5 dozen copies and use them to wall paper your
house. The minute you break the right of the copyright holder by giving
the work to someone else, you've violated copyright law. You can still let
someone borrow the original book because that book was sold with the
intent of distribution. However, any copies of that book must either be
destroyed or stay with the book if you're giving someone else possesion
of the book.
> After all, its the expression of ideas that is copyrighted, not the
> medium. Thoughts?
By copying the book into a different medium, you're still copying the
expression of ideas that's copyrighted. Technically, one could use clean
room techniques in which you would have two teams physically separated
from each other. One group would sit down and study how the original
product works and give a summation of how it works to another group that's
never come in contact with the original product who will then sit down and
create a new work based on the information given to them. There is always
a lot of documention, usually physical separation between the two groups,
and sometimes lawyers or other personnel present to ensure everything is
done cleanly.
--
Ken Witherow ICQ: 21840670 <phan...@frontiernet.net>
http://www.frontiernet.net/~phantoml
Linux 2.3.49 - Because I'd like to get there today
Nov 5, 1999. The "duh" heard 'round the world.
Don
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
news:4tXD4.393$75....@ptah.visi.com...
> In article <8bpbth$go4$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, Don <?@?.?> wrote:
> >But you could take into account that there is a little effort put into
> >making the electronic format.
>
>
> >Not nearly as much as it takes to actually
> >write the book, but a miniscule amount of monkey-work is necessary.
>
convert,
> say, from 2E (yellow cover) to 2E (black cover), at a minimum. It's a
> substantial rework; the HTML is broken at different positions, and has a
> fairly high density of hyperlinks to related things which were not present
in
> the original material.
Oh sure, converting it to HTML is a lot of work. I was referring to taking
the digital document and just making an RTF or PDF file out of it. Not too
difficult it the original is created properly. But adding all those HTML
links would be a pain.
- Don
Steve Buza
infringement as pertains to the AD&D game manuals I have been struck
by the absurdity of the argument against (and for) electronic versions
of printed documents.
If you already own a physical copy of the books contained in the help
file that comes with the Core Rules 2.0, why shouldn't I be able to
e-mail you a copy of the help-file version?
After all you already own a "license" to the copyrighted material.
All I'm providing you is a copy of your same licensed text in an
electronic format. (You get to this point when you reverse engineer
license/copyright notices that tell you that you can't reproduce
printed documents in electronic format.)
After all, its the expression of ideas that is copyrighted, not the
medium. Thoughts?
Steve
Peter Seebach
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If you already own a physical copy of the books contained in the help
>file that comes with the Core Rules 2.0, why shouldn't I be able to
>e-mail you a copy of the help-file version?
For the same reason that owning a lot of books does not entitle you to a
free dictionary.
The Core Rules CD is a "derived work", and, as such, has a copyright
on the "compilation", just as a translation into a new language creates
a derived work *which has a separate copyright*.
>After all you already own a "license" to the copyrighted material.
No, you have a license to the expression of it in the paper books. However,
the work used to create the HTML files, or RTF files, is generally believed
to be sufficient to create a separate copyrighted work.
>After all, its the expression of ideas that is copyrighted, not the
>medium. Thoughts?
The conversion to HTML may plausibly be considered an "expression" in and of
itself. In theory, I have copyright on the *re-derived* work that I create
when I run my little scripts on the Evermore HTML - but in practice, it's
totally useless to me, since it's still a derived work, and I don't have a
license to it which allows distribution, so instead, I distribute my little
scripts, which *are* legitimately mine, and everyone's happy.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Peter Seebach
>But you could take into account that there is a little effort put into
>making the electronic format.
Quite a lot, actually.
>Not nearly as much as it takes to actually
>write the book, but a miniscule amount of monkey-work is necessary.
Hardly miniscule. I'd consider it on the same scale as the work to convert,
say, from 2E (yellow cover) to 2E (black cover), at a minimum. It's a
substantial rework; the HTML is broken at different positions, and has a
fairly high density of hyperlinks to related things which were not present in
the original material.
For instance, the Monstrous Manual "table of contents" has both
Black Dragon
and
Dragon, Black
and either gets you to the dragon. The resulting document has information
that is not trivially evident from the paper printing.
Rich Shipley
>
> I do think due to the lobbying of movie studios and other IP holders,
> copyright has gotten WAAAY out of hand. Copyright originally lasted 14
> years with an optional 14 more if you wanted them before they entered into
> the public domain.
You are confusing patents and copyrights. Copyright was 50 years, now it
is 75.
Rich
Ken Witherow
From a paper written by Harvard's law school
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ltac98/trustsys.html
"Time limits on protection are another concern with trusted
systems. Copyright has a limited duration of the life of the author plus
50 years or 75 years for work-for-hire. (Note: Legislation passed this
year extends this to life of author plus 70 years and 95 years)"
FWIW, patents are good for 17 years.
Steve Buza
wrote:
>In article <8bpbth$go4$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, Don <?@?.?> wrote:
>>But you could take into account that there is a little effort put into
>>making the electronic format.
>
>Quite a lot, actually.
>
>>Not nearly as much as it takes to actually
>>write the book, but a miniscule amount of monkey-work is necessary.
>
>Hardly miniscule. I'd consider it on the same scale as the work to convert,
>say, from 2E (yellow cover) to 2E (black cover), at a minimum. It's a
>substantial rework; the HTML is broken at different positions, and has a
>fairly high density of hyperlinks to related things which were not present in
>the original material.
Copyright doesn't cover how "hard" or "long" it took you. It has to
do with the expression of an idea. If the expression is exactly the
same in electronic form as it is in paper form then it is the same
document and covered by the same copyright, for which you have already
paid fair market value.
Steve
Steve Buza
wrote:
>In article <38e02276...@news.ispchannel.com>,
>Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>If you already own a physical copy of the books contained in the help
>>file that comes with the Core Rules 2.0, why shouldn't I be able to
>>e-mail you a copy of the help-file version?
>
>For the same reason that owning a lot of books does not entitle you to a
>free dictionary.
>
>The Core Rules CD is a "derived work", and, as such, has a copyright
>on the "compilation", just as a translation into a new language creates
>a derived work *which has a separate copyright*.
No. No No. I'm not talking about the Core Rules. I'm talking about
specifically the Word Help format copy of the Player's Handbook, DMG,
etc. Not the whole CD. The electronic books are not derivative
works. They ARE the works.
I'm not arguing that I should be able to give a copy of the Core Rule
2.0 CD to my friend who has all of the printed AD&D manuals since the
dawn of time. I'm arguing that if he's already got the books, that my
providing him with the same thing in a different medium is akin to me
helping him create a photocopy of all of his books for working copies
while he keeps the originals in a locked box.
>>After all you already own a "license" to the copyrighted material.
>
>No, you have a license to the expression of it in the paper books. However,
>the work used to create the HTML files, or RTF files, is generally believed
>to be sufficient to create a separate copyrighted work.
The expression on paper is exactly the same as the expression in
electronic form. Expression is _not_ medium. If RTF or HTML is
generally suffiicient to create a separate copyrighted work then I
could create my own copy of RTF PHB and DMG and it would be MY
copyright. That would be silly.
>>After all, its the expression of ideas that is copyrighted, not the
>>medium. Thoughts?
>
>The conversion to HTML may plausibly be considered an "expression" in and of
>itself.
First of all the files are not HTML, they are Windows Help files. And
secondly if it _is_ a different expression of the same idea, then it
could have been created by anyone. The idea is not copyrighted.
I have a problem with this because I believe that if you or I had
created a Word Help file that contained the complete text of the PHB
and DMG (before Evermore got involved) that WoTC would have sued us
for copyright infringement. How could they do it if it was a
"different" expression of the same idea.
You can't have it both ways. Either it is the same expression and
covered under the same copyright as the books, or it is a different
expression of the same idea, in which case you or I could create the
complete text of the PHB in .PDF format since that's a "new"
expression by your definition.
Finally, I'm not interested in distributing the electronic books. I'm
interested in helping my friend obtain a "backup copy" of the existing
works for which he already has a licensed copy.
I have not actually done this btw.
I'm just somewhat irritated that they tell me on one hand that I only
own the medium and am licensed to have a copy of the copyrighted
material. On the other hand they aren't willing to allow me to
replace the damaged medium containing the copyrighted material for
which I already own a license.
They want me to buy a new license again and I think that is patently
unfair.
Steve
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
> Copyright doesn't cover how "hard" or "long" it took you. It has to
> do with the expression of an idea. If the expression is exactly the
> same in electronic form as it is in paper form then it is the same
> document and covered by the same copyright, for which you have already
> paid fair market value.
Using that argument, the versions of the PHB et. al. on the Core Rules
CD aren't covered by the same copyright, as the paper version has
illustration, specific fonts, and a specific layout, while the versions
on the RTF are pictureless RTF or hyperlinked .hlp files: not "exactly
the same" expression.
--
Sean K Reynolds - game designer, computer artist, web guy, bigmouth
http://www.seankreynolds.com
Aardy R. DeVarque
>While reading through the various discussions of copyright
>infringement as pertains to the AD&D game manuals I have been struck
>by the absurdity of the argument against (and for) electronic versions
>of printed documents.
Said "absurdity" is actually an accurate representation of copyright law in
the U.S. (and around the world in countries that've signed the Berne
Convention). If you don't like it, complain to your congresscritter.
>If you already own a physical copy of the books contained in the help
>file that comes with the Core Rules 2.0, why shouldn't I be able to
>e-mail you a copy of the help-file version?
The law allows you to make your *own* copies for your own use, but does not
allow you to give away/sell copies to anyone else, regardless of whether or
not they also own an original.
If you buy a hard-copy DDG with Cthulhu & Elric, the law allows you to
photocopy the entire thing so that you can use the copies and store the
original in a safety-deposit box. The law does not allow you to give away
or sell photocopies, even though that version of the book has been out of
print for almost two decades and regardless of whether or not the recipient
also owns a DDG with Cthulhu & Elric.
Likewise, if you buy a hard-copy DDG with Cthulhu & Elric, the law allows
you to scan it into your computer and create your own RTF file. The law
does not allow you to e-mail that RTF file to anyone you want to, or to put
that RTF file on your webpage for anyone to download, even though that
version of the book has been out of print for almost two decades and
regardless of whether or not the recipient also owns a DDG with Cthulhu &
Elric.
Likewise, if you buy the Core Rules CD-ROM, the law allows you to take the
RTF of the PH2 & edit it to take out the rules you don't use and insert all
of your house rules, for use in the games you play in. The law does not
allow you to e-mail copies of the original RTF nor your edited version to
anyone you want to, regardless of whether or not they own the Core Rules
CD-ROM and regardless of whether or not they own a hard-copy of the PH2.
(Note that the software license that comes with the Core Rules CD-ROM may
further restrict what is allowed, and is a whole 'nother matter entirely.)
This isn't an argument for/against anything, this is a statement of what is
spelled out in Title 17 of the U.S. Code and the various Copyright
Circulars, as well as in the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright
Convention, and other such documents which spell out copyright law. I am
not a lawyer, but this is a basic concept that's hammered home in the laws
themselves as well as every book & document on the topic I've ever seen.
If you want more details & further understanding on what the law
does/doesn't allow, either look it up for yourself at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ or hie yourself over to the newsgroup
misc.int-property, which is the newsgroup dedicated to discussions of
copyrights, trademarks, and patents.
Ken Witherow
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 05:29:12 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <38e02276...@news.ispchannel.com>,
> >Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>If you already own a physical copy of the books contained in the help
> >>file that comes with the Core Rules 2.0, why shouldn't I be able to
> >>e-mail you a copy of the help-file version?
> >
> >For the same reason that owning a lot of books does not entitle you to a
> >free dictionary.
> >
> >The Core Rules CD is a "derived work", and, as such, has a copyright
> >on the "compilation", just as a translation into a new language creates
> >a derived work *which has a separate copyright*.
>
> No. No No. I'm not talking about the Core Rules. I'm talking about
> specifically the Word Help format copy of the Player's Handbook, DMG,
> etc. Not the whole CD. The electronic books are not derivative
> works. They ARE the works.
And as copyrighted works, the holder has expressly forbidden you from
distributing them. It's murkier if you're doing it for purposes of use
during a gaming session since it could be argued that's for personal use
rather than distribution. IANAL so I can't speak for sure.
> I'm not arguing that I should be able to give a copy of the Core Rule
> 2.0 CD to my friend who has all of the printed AD&D manuals since the
> dawn of time. I'm arguing that if he's already got the books, that my
> providing him with the same thing in a different medium is akin to me
> helping him create a photocopy of all of his books for working copies
> while he keeps the originals in a locked box.
By giving him copies in another medium, you'd be distributing copyrighted
material illegally (you have the right to do whatever you want with the
material for yourself but you don't have the right to give it to someone
else unless you give up your rights to the original material as well (give
him your backup copy as well as the original)).
Even if you were to type up a copy of the book letter for letter, you
don't own the copyright on the material you typed. If, however, you used
their mechanics( as far as I know they don't have the mechanics
patented. Also you absolutely cannot copyright ideas, algorithms, etc
merely particular implementations of them ) and created your own tables
and summation of the mechanics, you would own the copyright on your work
and could distribute it. This gets back to the idea of reverse engineering
which is legal though a lot of big companies, especially software
companies, are trying to make it illegal.
> >>After all you already own a "license" to the copyrighted material.
> >
> >No, you have a license to the expression of it in the paper books. However,
> >the work used to create the HTML files, or RTF files, is generally believed
> >to be sufficient to create a separate copyrighted work.
>
> The expression on paper is exactly the same as the expression in
> electronic form. Expression is _not_ medium. If RTF or HTML is
> generally suffiicient to create a separate copyrighted work then I
> could create my own copy of RTF PHB and DMG and it would be MY
> copyright. That would be silly.
Expression generally covers how things are phrased. The sentence "My car
is blue" has the same expression whether it's written upsidedown,
backwards, encrypted, etc. Anything that repeats that expression would be
in violation of copyright (though nobody is going to win a suit over a
phrase or paragraph). If someone else said "My vehicle has a blue tint" it
would be a different expression.
> >>After all, its the expression of ideas that is copyrighted, not the
> >>medium. Thoughts?
> >
> >The conversion to HTML may plausibly be considered an "expression" in and of
> >itself.
>
> First of all the files are not HTML, they are Windows Help files. And
> secondly if it _is_ a different expression of the same idea, then it
> could have been created by anyone. The idea is not copyrighted.
Changing format doesn't change copyright ownership. If you typed up the
PHB, TSR/WOTC still owns the copyright on it.
> I have a problem with this because I believe that if you or I had
> created a Word Help file that contained the complete text of the PHB
> and DMG (before Evermore got involved) that WoTC would have sued us
> for copyright infringement. How could they do it if it was a
> "different" expression of the same idea.
It's the same expression in a different medium, therefore they still own
the copyright regardless of the amount of work you went through to create
it in a different medium.
> You can't have it both ways. Either it is the same expression and
> covered under the same copyright as the books, or it is a different
> expression of the same idea, in which case you or I could create the
> complete text of the PHB in .PDF format since that's a "new"
> expression by your definition.
It is the same expression covered under the same copyright laws. Those
laws give the copyright holder the right to determine how the material can
be distributed. You can do whatever you want with the work for your own
personal use because you're not distributing it to anyone else. Just
because you own material in one format doesn't mean you have an inherit
right to get it from someone other than the holder in a different
format. TSR/WOTC holds the copyright in this case and it is their decision
whether or not they want it to be freely distributable from other sources
to people who own another format of the work.
> Finally, I'm not interested in distributing the electronic books. I'm
> interested in helping my friend obtain a "backup copy" of the existing
> works for which he already has a licensed copy.
By law, it is illegal for you to redistribute copyrighted work unless
granted explicit permission from the copyright holder. It's that
simple. Your friend could type it up from the original material since he
holds a license to use it but it absolutely cannot be distributed to
anyone else without TSR/WOTC's permission.
> I'm just somewhat irritated that they tell me on one hand that I only
> own the medium and am licensed to have a copy of the copyrighted
> material. On the other hand they aren't willing to allow me to
> replace the damaged medium containing the copyrighted material for
> which I already own a license.
If the medium of the work you own gets destroyed, your license to use that
material gets destroyed with it. You must possess an original copy of the
medium to have a license for the work embodied in it. You can do whatever
you want with that work as long as it's for your personal use and you
don't distribute it to anyone else.
> They want me to buy a new license again and I think that is patently
> unfair.
Fair or unfair, it's the copyright holder's right under law. Copyright and
other intellectual property laws were written with the intent of
encouraging people to come up with new ideas and publish them. In many
cases today, IP law is being blatently abused to stifle ideas but in this
case, TSR/WOTC is clearly within their right to not allow distribution of
their products as they choose. It is because they have the right to
prevent distribution that they can make money which is in turn what
encourages them to make new material.
If you don't like TSR/WOTC's protection of their rights, find another
system in the public domain or licensed under a distribution friendly
license like the GNU FDL. If there's nothing out there you like,
collaborate with people to make your own open gaming system( a real open
system unlike WOTC's latest idea ). Linux was created because people felt
motivated enough to do something their way; Linus didn't sit back whining
because nobody would let him have something for free. Basically, play by
their rules (which they rightfully impose) or play/make a different game.
Jargon
logical. Okay, stop snickering. Law is written by people. The laws are
whatever is contained within the sentences. It's meaning is whatever a
lawer can argue that the sentence actually means. Those laws are not
always logical or consitent to begin with, and may even be tortuously
vague and annoyingly complex.
So are you clear on how everything can be unclear?
Douglas
Steve Buza wrote:
> While reading through the various discussions of copyright
> infringement as pertains to the AD&D game manuals I have been struck
> by the absurdity of the argument against (and for) electronic versions
> of printed documents.
>
> If you already own a physical copy of the books contained in the help
> file that comes with the Core Rules 2.0, why shouldn't I be able to
> e-mail you a copy of the help-file version?
>
> After all you already own a "license" to the copyrighted material.
> All I'm providing you is a copy of your same licensed text in an
> electronic format. (You get to this point when you reverse engineer
> license/copyright notices that tell you that you can't reproduce
> printed documents in electronic format.)
>
> After all, its the expression of ideas that is copyrighted, not the
> medium. Thoughts?
>
> Steve
Jono
> You are using logic in connection with law. Law is not necessarily
> logical. Okay, stop snickering. Law is written by people. The laws are
> whatever is contained within the sentences. It's meaning is whatever a
> lawer can argue that the sentence actually means. Those laws are not
> always logical or consitent to begin with, and may even be tortuously
> vague and annoyingly complex.
>
> So are you clear on how everything can be unclear?
>
> Douglas
Thats almost exactly what my criminal law lecturer said this morning:
"If you try to work out what the law is using common sense and logic
you will fail. You need to know the law, it isnt commen sensical or
logical." (I paraphrase, but you get the basic idea)
Jono
Law Student, London, UK
Steve Buza
<mindles...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>You are using logic in connection with law. Law is not necessarily
>logical. Okay, stop snickering. Law is written by people. The laws are
>whatever is contained within the sentences. It's meaning is whatever a
>lawer can argue that the sentence actually means. Those laws are not
>always logical or consitent to begin with, and may even be tortuously
>vague and annoyingly complex.
>
>So are you clear on how everything can be unclear?
Yes.
And just so everyone else is clear...
My issue is not that I want to break the law.
My issue is that the law is ambiguous, faulty, and written
specifically that way so that lawyers can make more money deciphering
it for us.
And my point is that it would be nice to effect a change that is more
consistent with logic.
And those of you who call me a "thieving moron" merely because I think
the law is flawed can bite my ass. (You know who you are.)
Steve
Steve Buza
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>If the medium of the work you own gets destroyed, your license to use that
>material gets destroyed with it. You must possess an original copy of the
>medium to have a license for the work embodied in it.
Bah. If I install it on my hard drive and then my CD breaks I need to
remove it from my hard drive because I don't have the medium anymore
and so my license is no good?
Where does the law _or_ the license say this?
The license doesn't even mention the word "medium." The license
refers specifically to the copyrighted work.
Steve
Ken Witherow
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:10:11 -0500, Ken Witherow
> <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>
> >If the medium of the work you own gets destroyed, your license to use that
> >material gets destroyed with it. You must possess an original copy of the
> >medium to have a license for the work embodied in it.
>
> Bah. If I install it on my hard drive and then my CD breaks I need to
> remove it from my hard drive because I don't have the medium anymore
> and so my license is no good?
it depends. If you have the original CD, though scratched or broken into
pieces, no, you don't need to delete it since you still have the original
medium with the license on it. If your CD, and thus your license to use
it, are, say, burned, you lose your right since you no longer can prove
you have a license. Often, if you break a CD or disk, if you write to the
distributor, they'll often replace the CD if you send in the defective
original and pay a small replacement fee.
> Where does the law _or_ the license say this?
> The license doesn't even mention the word "medium." The license
> refers specifically to the copyrighted work.
Possession of the license is what grants you the the rights
given by the license. If you aren't in legal possession of the license,
possibly because the medium containing the license was destroyed, you
don't have the rights to it. For possession, it doesn't have to be in your
hands but it does have to be available for presentation.
Ken Witherow
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:19:40 -0500, Jargon
> <mindles...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >You are using logic in connection with law. Law is not necessarily
> >logical. Okay, stop snickering. Law is written by people. The laws are
> >whatever is contained within the sentences. It's meaning is whatever a
> >lawer can argue that the sentence actually means. Those laws are not
> >always logical or consitent to begin with, and may even be tortuously
> >vague and annoyingly complex.
> >
> >So are you clear on how everything can be unclear?
>
> Yes.
>
> And just so everyone else is clear...
>
> My issue is not that I want to break the law.
FWIW, I'm not accusing you of wanting to break the law, merely trying to
define where the law comes down in such cases. Being a software
programmer, I had to learn early on exactly what my rights were and what
other authors rights were as well.
> My issue is that the law is ambiguous, faulty, and written
> specifically that way so that lawyers can make more money deciphering
> it for us.
That's why there are over a million lawyers in the US. Most
Congresscrittens are lawyers as well so they're just trying to make sure
they have a job besides lobbying if/once they leave. We wouldn't want
people to be able to simply figure out exactly what the government's
trying to pull on us would we? </sarcasm>
> And my point is that it would be nice to effect a change that is more
> consistent with logic.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has set us back even
farther. Another key piece of legislation is currently being introduced in
state legislatures called the Uniform Computer Information Transaction
Act. What this bill would do is make End User License Agreements
(EULAs) legally binding which means those clauses that basically say "You
can't sue us if our software destroys your business" legal( while often
included in licenses, many of these kind of statements aren't binding
). It also allows them to enforce click through licenses. Very nasty
legislation which is going to take away a majority of consumers
rights. It's already passed the Virginia leglislature but it can still be
stopped there. AFAIK, it hasn't been introduced in any other states
yet. Call your state representatives and tell them not to support it or
they won't have your vote come election time. Right to the editorial pages
of your local newspaper. Try to get the message out to people otherwise
they're going to be blindsided when it happens.
> And those of you who call me a "thieving moron" merely because I think
> the law is flawed can bite my ass. (You know who you are.)
I doubt you're referring to me since I've merely tried to point out where
the law falls. Support products that have open distribution and
work to make them better if you're capable. It's worked for linux
and can work for other things as well. Convince people to tell Congress
and their local representatives they want a change. I do agree the law is
too confusing but there does need to be protections for creators if they
want it( just about everything I do, I open up via the GNU GPL ) and I
think the current length of protection is absurd. Justifying yourself to
us won't help change the law.
Ken Witherow
> Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
> % Possession of the license is what grants you the the rights
> % given by the license. If you aren't in legal possession of the license,
> % possibly because the medium containing the license was destroyed, you
> % don't have the rights to it. For possession, it doesn't have to be in your
> % hands but it does have to be available for presentation.
>
> That's highly questionable legally: shrinkwrap licenses may not be
> enforceable in court, and there's no clear indication that you have to keep
If the UCITA passes, shrinkwrap licenses will be legally binding. Contact
your state level representatives to make sure it doesn't pass. For more
info on why the UCITA and DMCA are bad, see
http://63.236.72.248/stories/15948.html
http://63.236.72.248/stories/15655.html
http://63.236.72.248/stories/16603.html
> media or print copies or proof of puchase around if you bought the product
> legitimately. I have software which I purchased but no longer have
> original media (floppies, yuck!) but only backup copies... as long as I
> haven't given the original media to someone else, I'm still fine.
As usual, IANAL.
So, theoretically, you get raiding by the SPA and FBI... without an
original of the license (either by means of original packaging, the older
style paper license or original media) that copy is considered
pirated. While in criminal court, you have the presumption of innocence
you could serve time only if they can prove you stole it. However, in a
civil case, where the corp is suing you for damages, without an original
copy of a license, you'd lose and have to pay damages and penalties.
When it comes to software, you should store either the original packaging
or media (use your backup copy) in a safe place to ensure you can prove
you have a license for it. If we're referring to a book, if feasible, I'd
make a backup copy and store the original. If not possible, if the book is
destroyed beyond recognition, you can't prove you own a license.
It's also unlikely that you're going to get busted unless you're a major
infringer( say a warez site ) or you're dumb enough to advertise it in a
place where you can get caught( the idiots you see saying "I posted the
Core Rules CD on http://whatever" ).
Ken Witherow
> That's a separate issue: if you legitimately purchased a *software* product,
> and your medium was damages, you were legally entitled to make a backup
> copy. While you may not legally be allowed to copy it from a friend, if you
> have the original CD (broken in half) and a backup on CD-R, who's to say
> [except for this thread] that you didn't just back up the original CD when
> you bought it? You've got the original one to prove you did.
If he has a backup and a defective original, if he did it himself it's
legal. If he got it from a friend, legally speaking, it's illegal
distribution. Will he get caught? EXTREMELY unlikely. Will anyone
care? Probably not.
> The issue of giving somebody the RTF files as a backup of their PhB is
> seperate, and BS: the ebooks from the CD are NOT the same product, or the
> same intellectual property. *IF* you were to scan the book yourself, and
> *discreetly* give it to a friend who had the original book, that argument
> *might* come *close* to flying, since he'd be allowed to scan *his* copy of
> the book for his own personal use... but YOUR scans aren't the rtf/hlp/html
> ones from the Core rules.
It still doesn't change the fact that he's illegally distributing
copyrighted material. It doesn't matter what format it's in, he still
violating the holder's IP rights if he doesn't have explicit permission to
distribute. Again, it's extremely improbable that he'll get caught and
prosecuted but that doesn't make it any less legal. It's still a traffic
violation if you're speeding and don't get caught. Rationalize it all you
want; it's still against the law.
Ken Witherow
> Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
> % If he has a backup and a defective original, if he did it himself it's
> % legal. If he got it from a friend, legally speaking, it's illegal
> % distribution. Will he get caught? EXTREMELY unlikely. Will anyone
> % care? Probably not.
>
> OTOH, if he's got the damaged original, and his licensing paperwork, even if
> he WERE to get raided, they'd also have to prove that the copy was not a
> legitimate backup.
We're in agreement on this. As long as you have a shred of evidence of
owning the original license, you have a pretty strong arguement for
holding a backup copy. My point is that technically, it is illegal to give
someone else your backup copy even if they too own the original. To twist
things a bit more, I don't see why you can't exchange your original and
it's backup for his original and then duplicate the original in your
possession. Another case of law not being logical but it's the law
nevertheless.
> % distribute. Again, it's extremely improbable that he'll get caught and
> % prosecuted but that doesn't make it any less legal. It's still a traffic
> % violation if you're speeding and don't get caught. Rationalize it all you
> % want; it's still against the law.
>
> Well, speeding limits as they exist on most American freeways a great
> example of a stupid law that does more harm then good. Copyright's not
> nearly so bad: there you've got some *largely* good laws, although the
> direction they've been changing is a negative one. Nobody needs 95 years of
> copyright, and I'm pretty convinced that the next step is to make copyright
> perpetual.
I think copyright should return to it's original status of 14 years with
an optional 14 if the holder desires. Many films, books, etc are decaying
as we speak simply because it's copyright holder doesn't want to share
them. 14-28 years is a reasonable amount of time to ensure the creator
has a chance to make money off his/her work.
> My point was not to advise someone to give their friends their own scans,
> and certainly not that it's legal, but simply that from a logical
> perspective, there's a big difference between the two scenarios. In one
> case, you're redistributing a value-added product that one of you has bought
> and the other hasn't (whether or not either of you have the original work is
> irrelevant in that case: you don't need to own the core rules hardbacks to
> BUY the CD, after all...) ... in the other, you both own the original
> product, and any value being added is by you. Given that you're not
> distributing it publicly or selling it, both of which are clearly bad, and
I agree that as long as you have a license for the material, it's
irrelavent if you have it in multiple formats. The DMCA, however, allows
companies to dictate exactly how you can use the material you bought the
license (and media) to use. See the lawsuits brought by the MPAA and
DVDCCA against the teenage finish author of software (DeCSS) that lets you
view DVDs under linux and other systems without support for it. The judge
ruled under the DMCA, DeCSS breaks the content protection afforded by
region coding and thus is illegal. It bans virtually all reverse
engineering except for interoperability unless you also have to remove
security barriers. Basically, if you get material that has the simplest
form of encryption on it, you lose access to it unless you play by the
creators rules. Pretty scary stuff and blatently against everything IP
laws and consumer rights stand for.
Distribution without authorization is still illegal despite how minor it
is under copyright law.
> given that your friend could add the value for his own personal use legally
> by scanning it himself, you've fallen into one of the cracks of the
> copyright system.
The law allows you to make a backup copy for yourself... it provides no
method for helping a friend make a backup regardless of whether or not it
makes sense.
We can sit here bickering back and forth about the details and whether
they're logical, moral, enforcible, etc but it's not going to change the
law. The only way to do that is to get your representatives to change. I
personally have written letters to the editorial page of my local paper
trying to raise the awareness of people regarding the DMCA and would
gladly provide it to others if anyone is interested (or help right a
longer, more detailed opinion piece since my paper limits essays to 175
words). People may also wish to join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(www.eff.org) whom are fighting against the DMCA. Everyone complains about
the corps getting their way since they grease the pockets of our leaders
but if enough people complain, no amount of money is going to re-elect
those representatives.
Steve Buza
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>> Bah. If I install it on my hard drive and then my CD breaks I need to
>> remove it from my hard drive because I don't have the medium anymore
>> and so my license is no good?
>
>it depends. If you have the original CD, though scratched or broken into
>pieces, no, you don't need to delete it since you still have the original
>medium with the license on it. If your CD, and thus your license to use
>it, are, say, burned, you lose your right since you no longer can prove
>you have a license. Often, if you break a CD or disk, if you write to the
>distributor, they'll often replace the CD if you send in the defective
>original and pay a small replacement fee.
Yes, that's true, most will replace the CD for a nominal fee precisely
because they understand that there is a difference between the license
and the medium.
Just to caution others, WoTC was unwilling to replace my CD for ANY
fee less than full purchase of a new license even though I was willing
to send them my broken CD as proof of my purchase.
It stands to reason then that WoTC doesn't understand the difference
between license and medium, but that's not surprising considering they
maintain that my original world of Elementara is a derived work that
they own copyright to.
I should also mention that there is a difference between owning a
license and holding proof of ownership of the license. Just as there
is a difference in owning a car and holding the title to it in your
hand. It may be that the difference is negligible in court of course,
but my argument is that there SHOULD and rightly OUGHT to be a
difference. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the
defendant.
License agreements aren't there merely for the protection of the
seller of software. They also grant specific rights to the license
holder, and I should mention that not a single one of my licenses
states that the license expries if the medium is damaged.
Apparently there is a law or at least common law that states this, or
at least you imply that. Where might this law be found?
Steve
Steve Buza
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>> That's a separate issue: if you legitimately purchased a *software* product,
>> and your medium was damages, you were legally entitled to make a backup
>> copy. While you may not legally be allowed to copy it from a friend, if you
>> have the original CD (broken in half) and a backup on CD-R, who's to say
>> [except for this thread] that you didn't just back up the original CD when
>> you bought it? You've got the original one to prove you did.
>
>If he has a backup and a defective original, if he did it himself it's
>legal. If he got it from a friend, legally speaking, it's illegal
>distribution. Will he get caught? EXTREMELY unlikely. Will anyone
>care? Probably not.
My friend can make a backup copy for personal uses, right? But he
can't give it to me because then he'd be violating the distribution
clause of the copyright law.
I own a license. Bought and paid for. So I am legally entitled to a
copy.
So I could merely go to my friend's house, walk into his room, STEAL
his personal backup copy, for which he will very likely not press
charges, and come away completely clean. ;)
Now, my CG wizard would do this. Would my paladin? Probably not.
Steve
Steve Buza
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>On 30 Mar 2000, Nate Edel wrote:
>We can sit here bickering back and forth about the details and whether
>they're logical, moral, enforcible, etc but it's not going to change the
>law. The only way to do that is to get your representatives to change.
Ken,
The _entire_ reason I started this thread was because I wanted to
raise awareness of the issues we've discussed. Maybe it is bickering,
but its worth discussing if others come to an understanding about it
(either for or against) a change. Knowledge is good.
I appreciate your input.
Steve
Steve Buza
<k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>> My issue is that the law is ambiguous, faulty, and written
>> specifically that way so that lawyers can make more money deciphering
>> it for us.
>
>That's why there are over a million lawyers in the US. Most
>Congresscrittens are lawyers as well so they're just trying to make sure
>they have a job besides lobbying if/once they leave. We wouldn't want
>people to be able to simply figure out exactly what the government's
>trying to pull on us would we? </sarcasm>
I hear ya.
>> And my point is that it would be nice to effect a change that is more
>> consistent with logic.
>
>The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has set us back even
>farther. Another key piece of legislation is currently being introduced in
>state legislatures called the Uniform Computer Information Transaction
>Act. What this bill would do is make End User License Agreements
>(EULAs) legally binding which means those clauses that basically say "You
>can't sue us if our software destroys your business" legal( while often
>included in licenses, many of these kind of statements aren't binding
>). It also allows them to enforce click through licenses. Very nasty
>legislation which is going to take away a majority of consumers
>rights. It's already passed the Virginia leglislature but it can still be
>stopped there. AFAIK, it hasn't been introduced in any other states
>yet. Call your state representatives and tell them not to support it or
>they won't have your vote come election time. Right to the editorial pages
>of your local newspaper. Try to get the message out to people otherwise
>they're going to be blindsided when it happens.
Thank your for this information.
>> And those of you who call me a "thieving moron" merely because I think
>> the law is flawed can bite my ass. (You know who you are.)
>
>I doubt you're referring to me since I've merely tried to point out where
>the law falls.
You're right. I wasn't referring to you, Ken.
> Justifying yourself to us won't help change the law.
Ok, here we disagree. Justifying the logic behind my argument will
hopefully help others to see the issue. Your responses of precisely
why the law doesn't allow what I'm asking for will help others to see
the issue.
If the end result is what we both are interested in, then the
discussion is worthwhile, including those points that we disagree on.
Steve
Ken Witherow
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:24:28 -0500, Ken Witherow
> <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>
> >On 30 Mar 2000, Nate Edel wrote:
> >We can sit here bickering back and forth about the details and whether
> >they're logical, moral, enforcible, etc but it's not going to change the
> >law. The only way to do that is to get your representatives to change.
>
> Ken,
>
> The _entire_ reason I started this thread was because I wanted to
> raise awareness of the issues we've discussed. Maybe it is bickering,
> but its worth discussing if others come to an understanding about it
> (either for or against) a change. Knowledge is good.
Agreed. My point is talk is one thing, actually doing something and
getting others to help out is another. It is important to talk about it
but it is even more important to get people motivated enough to write and
call their Congresscritters to invoke change.
Ken Witherow
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:03:57 -0500, Ken Witherow
> <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
> >If he has a backup and a defective original, if he did it himself it's
> >legal. If he got it from a friend, legally speaking, it's illegal
> >distribution. Will he get caught? EXTREMELY unlikely. Will anyone
> >care? Probably not.
>
> My friend can make a backup copy for personal uses, right? But he
> can't give it to me because then he'd be violating the distribution
> clause of the copyright law.
Correct.
> I own a license. Bought and paid for. So I am legally entitled to a
> copy.
You are indeed legally entitled to possess the information for which the
license is granted.
> So I could merely go to my friend's house, walk into his room, STEAL
> his personal backup copy, for which he will very likely not press
> charges, and come away completely clean. ;)
He most likely wouldn't press charges but technically, it's theft. It also
brings up the question of enabling and motivation leading to unlawful
distribution. If he were to make a backup for his personal use and were to
carelessly leave it in places where it was likely to be lifted( say a
bench in front of the local hobby shop ), there is a possible case of
copyright infringement against him if someone steals it( he didn't mean to
distribute but still facillitated it - negligence isn't a defense ). If he
were to make a personal copy which he kept on his desk at home and someone
lifted it, he made a reasonable attempt to secure it. If he makes copies
with the intent to distribute, it's an obvious violation of copyright law
whether he leaves it on his desk or the bench. In the case of gaming
materials and groups, it could be argued that you could distribute to your
gaming group if you intend to use it in during that group's sessions( it
could fall under personal use. Consider VHS/DVDs that say you can't
show them in public but it's perfectly legal to show them in your
house with two dozen friends over. ) There is also consideration
of fair use, which the DMCA tries to eliminate, that allows you to post a
paragraph or two for purposes of discussion( you frequently see
this with newspapers and reviews ). Consult a lawyer before anything
questionable since IANAL and I could be wrong.
> Now, my CG wizard would do this. Would my paladin? Probably not.
Why do I see another alignment thread starting? :)
Tim Fitzmaurice
> If he has a backup and a defective original, if he did it himself it's
> legal. If he got it from a friend, legally speaking, it's illegal
> distribution. Will he get caught? EXTREMELY unlikely. Will anyone
Why? He would be allowed to make a copy, the law makes no reference to HOW
you go about getting that copy, add to that the Proxy law, and the
fact that libraries are allowed to have someone go and copy something for
you, and some institutions that do NOT fall into that category will insist
on an operator doing the copying of anything for you. Kinda puts is
squarely in the 'so long as its legal for you, you can commission someone
to do it for you', and then the difference becomes more why or how the
other guy had spare copies or if he did it only when asked for a specific
incidence of fair dealing (ie person X with dodgy media asking someone
else to burn a replacement copy as opposed to bloke having made 100s of
copies to pass around happening to have a spare).
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Tim Fitzmaurice
> The law allows you to make a backup copy for yourself... it provides no
> method for helping a friend make a backup regardless of whether or not it
> makes sense.
Actually certainly for the UK it allows 'FAIR DEALING', this in no way
explicitly states who, how or where a copy is make, merely that the action
of making it be fair....so copying it for use in the way the thing is
intended will be OK, as will backing up, and Proxy law in the UK clearly
allows you to get someone to do something for you if it would be legal for
you to do it, and there's nothing I;ve found in copyright law over-ruling
or making proxy inapplicable (OK I'm also making assumptions of reasonable
similarity to US law here).
Getting someone else to do something that you are permitted to do cos they
have the equipment is going to come under fair dealing as the net result
is identical. Certainly the way multiple licensed software and media are
thrown around here at work indicates that and the copyright people have
been all over this place for practises and infringements, software in
particular. Libraries do get weird specific rules (and often the weight
of the CLA backing up their stuff), but copy shops are not
covered by these rules and copyright can be the be all and end all of
their existence, and they often require the operator to do it, while you
sign a copyright declaration if they are worried. They wil have been told
whats legal and what isn't.
Overall given the Lord Denning pronouncements Fair Use needs to be
assigned on a case by case basis, which makes common law and precedence
slightly weaker though contributory to an argument, but the basis is
certainly there. However in no case will you really get a solid yes or no
answer one way or the other in the UK, at least until some Lord Chief
Justice decides Denning was wrong and overrules (if they can?).
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Just to caution others, WoTC was unwilling to replace my CD for ANY
> fee less than full purchase of a new license even though I was willing
> to send them my broken CD as proof of my purchase.
Sean has already asked who you dealt with, in a manner that suggests that
person was wrong...I'd follow up on that if I were you......
> but my argument is that there SHOULD and rightly OUGHT to be a
> difference. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the
> defendant.
Eh? Thats criminal law sure, but in the UK civil cases are balance of
probability, which really puts the burden of proof at least on both, if
not on the defendant. I don;t see civil law being any different in the US
since the two systems came from a similar origin after that distinction
was made....anyone comment on the US?
I'd feel like I was skating on thin ice if I had no original material to
prove my burned CD was a legal copy, on the other hand if I had packaging,
borken original manuals etc and had lost the license I would expect that
to prove reasonably that I had bought it....plus of course I could get
bank records for the transaction.
Ken Witherow
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:25:44 -0500, Ken Witherow
> <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
>
> >> Bah. If I install it on my hard drive and then my CD breaks I need to
> >> remove it from my hard drive because I don't have the medium anymore
> >> and so my license is no good?
> >
> >it depends. If you have the original CD, though scratched or broken into
> >pieces, no, you don't need to delete it since you still have the original
> >medium with the license on it. If your CD, and thus your license to use
> >it, are, say, burned, you lose your right since you no longer can prove
> >you have a license. Often, if you break a CD or disk, if you write to the
> >distributor, they'll often replace the CD if you send in the defective
> >original and pay a small replacement fee.
>
> Yes, that's true, most will replace the CD for a nominal fee precisely
> because they understand that there is a difference between the license
> and the medium.
>
> Just to caution others, WoTC was unwilling to replace my CD for ANY
> fee less than full purchase of a new license even though I was willing
> to send them my broken CD as proof of my purchase.
TSR, being a traditional medium company, doesn't understand software
issues very well. Apparently, they also don't understand copyright very
well considering the statements where they claim owning the copyright on
everything that can possibly be linked to xD&D.
> It stands to reason then that WoTC doesn't understand the difference
> between license and medium, but that's not surprising considering they
> maintain that my original world of Elementara is a derived work that
> they own copyright to.
Makes me glad I've been too busy to post the rest of my world to the
internet... FWIW, here's the definition of derivative work under Title 17,
Chapter 1, Section 101 of the US Code:
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form with a work may
be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial
revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as
a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
Basically, if you were to use their copyrighted material in your
publications, it would be a derivative work. Ie, if you were to make a
"Elementara Player's Handbook" that contained revisions to work
copyrighted by TSR, it would be a derivative work( but it would have to be
an editorial revision of what they presented. An new experience table, new
magic items, etc wouldn't be derivative works but a modified table from
the PHB would be if it were published ).
Also, Section 103 specifies that:
"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the
material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
pre-existing material employed in the work, and does not imply any
exclusive right in the pre-existing material. The copyright of such work
is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
ownership, or subsistance of, any copyright protection in the pre-existing
material."
This seems to mean that the only part of your copyrighted work which TSR
can lay claim to are the parts that are derivatives of their copyright(
ie, your modified tables from the PHB and such ).
> I should also mention that there is a difference between owning a
> license and holding proof of ownership of the license. Just as there
> is a difference in owning a car and holding the title to it in your
> hand. It may be that the difference is negligible in court of course,
> but my argument is that there SHOULD and rightly OUGHT to be a
> difference. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the
> defendant.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Under criminal law, the burden of proof
is squarely on the plantiff/prosecution. Unfortunately, under civil law,
all that is required is guilt based on a perponderance of the
evidence. IOW, if they show you possess(ed) non-original copies, you need
to prove that you have a license to those copies to prove your innocence.
> License agreements aren't there merely for the protection of the
> seller of software. They also grant specific rights to the license
> holder, and I should mention that not a single one of my licenses
> states that the license expries if the medium is damaged.
As long as you can present proof that you own a license (either by keeping
the damaged media, a copy of the license, original sales receipt/box), you
have a civil right to have a backup of that product. Often commercial
software license reserve the right to change or revoke the terms of the
license at any time. AFAIK, it's not entirely legally binding as of now
but if the UCITA passes each state( or in your own state ), it will be.
> Apparently there is a law or at least common law that states this, or
> at least you imply that. Where might this law be found?
After a bit of research... some sections of the copyright law you may find
interesting...
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
Chapter 1, Section 106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Chapter 1, Section 109 Effect of transfer of particular copy or
phonorecord
Chapter 1, Section 117 Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
"(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival
purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in
the event that continued possession of the computer program
should cease to be rightful.
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or
Adaptation. - Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions
of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with
the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease,
sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so
prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright
owner. " - Shows you need a license to the original in order to possess
backups and if you transfer the original, you must transfer or destroy the
backups.
Chapter 5, Section 504 Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
Subsection C-2 Statutory Damages
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and
the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in
its descretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not
more than $100,000. In a case where the infringer sustainst he burden of
proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no
reason to believe that his acts constituted an infringement of copyright,
the court may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less
than $200..." - This shows that the burden can be placed on the
"infringer" to prove innocence.
Ken Witherow
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Ken Witherow wrote:
>
> > The law allows you to make a backup copy for yourself... it provides no
> > method for helping a friend make a backup regardless of whether or not it
> > makes sense.
>
> Actually certainly for the UK it allows 'FAIR DEALING', this in no way
> explicitly states who, how or where a copy is make, merely that the action
> of making it be fair....so copying it for use in the way the thing is
> intended will be OK, as will backing up, and Proxy law in the UK clearly
> allows you to get someone to do something for you if it would be legal for
> you to do it, and there's nothing I;ve found in copyright law over-ruling
> or making proxy inapplicable (OK I'm also making assumptions of reasonable
> similarity to US law here).
I'm not sure if US copyright law would cover this. I am pretty sure the
Berne Convention doesn't deal with proxies. Whether or not it's explicitly
written or implied under another section of law, I don't know.
> Getting someone else to do something that you are permitted to do cos they
> have the equipment is going to come under fair dealing as the net result
> is identical. Certainly the way multiple licensed software and media are
> thrown around here at work indicates that and the copyright people have
> been all over this place for practises and infringements, software in
> particular. Libraries do get weird specific rules (and often the weight
> of the CLA backing up their stuff), but copy shops are not
> covered by these rules and copyright can be the be all and end all of
> their existence, and they often require the operator to do it, while you
> sign a copyright declaration if they are worried. They wil have been told
> whats legal and what isn't.
Libraries in the US do have special rules, as does academia. I would think
that if you used someone else's equipement to make your backup, it would
be legal as law explicitly allows you to make a backup copy for
personal use. However, if you get someone else to make the backup for you,
I'm not sure if it would fall under illegal distribution under US law.
Ken Witherow
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Ken Witherow wrote:
>
> > If he has a backup and a defective original, if he did it himself it's
> > legal. If he got it from a friend, legally speaking, it's illegal
> > distribution. Will he get caught? EXTREMELY unlikely. Will anyone
>
> Why? He would be allowed to make a copy, the law makes no reference to HOW
> you go about getting that copy, add to that the Proxy law, and the
> fact that libraries are allowed to have someone go and copy something for
> you, and some institutions that do NOT fall into that category will insist
> on an operator doing the copying of anything for you. Kinda puts is
> squarely in the 'so long as its legal for you, you can commission someone
> to do it for you', and then the difference becomes more why or how the
> other guy had spare copies or if he did it only when asked for a specific
> incidence of fair dealing (ie person X with dodgy media asking someone
> else to burn a replacement copy as opposed to bloke having made 100s of
> copies to pass around happening to have a spare).
I guess it all comes down to the definition of distribution. As I said in
a previous message, if one tranferred the license to someone else, the new
owner could make a backup copy which would than be transferable with the
original. Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure exactly where precendent
regarding prior cases would fall on this one. To me, it seems like a
loophole that would allow copying by anyone as long as the copy remains
in possession of the license holder. It's further complicated by the DMCA
of 1998 here in the US which says that you can't override access control
mechanisms. While it would allow a functional bit by bit duplication, it
wouldn't allow you to modify the medium/software to ignore the ACM. Thus
if they XOR encrypted the documents, you couldn't copy the documents into
an unencrypted form; your backup copy would have to be in the XOR
encrypted format.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Steve Buza wrote:
> Just to caution others, WoTC was unwilling to replace my CD for ANY
> fee less than full purchase of a new license even though I was willing
> to send them my broken CD as proof of my purchase.
Again: WHO did you talk to about this? We replace damaged stuff quite
often with proof of the original.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> I'm not sure if US copyright law would cover this. I am pretty sure the
> Berne Convention doesn't deal with proxies. Whether or not it's explicitly
> written or implied under another section of law, I don't know.
Hmm Proxy law is seperate to copyright and going to vary in existence and
form from coutnry to country, and its below the level of the Berne
convention's reach from what I understand of that document...also the
Berne Convention itself aint Law in the UK, it would have to have some
other piece of action to enact its content, either a statutory instrument
or some common law acceptance (for instance copyright in the UK is granted
by the basic act solely to those countries listed UK, the commonwealth and
those that treat UK copyright similarly (as you can see UK law leaves
lots of room for manoeuvre). The Berne may kick in as a statutory
instrument stating that work in countries signatory to it get recognised
copyright or it may be enacted by precendent using the wooly phrase in the
Act by interpreting it that anyone signatory to the Berne treats UK
copyright similarly.....(I don't know which has happened myself, but our
system is like that...)
> Libraries in the US do have special rules, as does academia. I would think
Academia does not have special rules so much as most places that fall into
that definition sign up to the Copyright Licensing Authority which does
introduce similar rules to licensees. Libraries get a section in the Act,
and research and private study does too.
Ken Witherow
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Ken Witherow wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if US copyright law would cover this. I am pretty sure the
> > Berne Convention doesn't deal with proxies. Whether or not it's explicitly
> > written or implied under another section of law, I don't know.
>
> Hmm Proxy law is seperate to copyright and going to vary in existence and
> form from coutnry to country, and its below the level of the Berne
> convention's reach from what I understand of that document...also the
> Berne Convention itself aint Law in the UK, it would have to have some
> other piece of action to enact its content, either a statutory instrument
> or some common law acceptance (for instance copyright in the UK is granted
> by the basic act solely to those countries listed UK, the commonwealth and
> those that treat UK copyright similarly (as you can see UK law leaves
> lots of room for manoeuvre). The Berne may kick in as a statutory
> instrument stating that work in countries signatory to it get recognised
> copyright or it may be enacted by precendent using the wooly phrase in the
> Act by interpreting it that anyone signatory to the Berne treats UK
> copyright similarly.....(I don't know which has happened myself, but our
> system is like that...)
The Berne Convention specifies a certain set of rules in which signatory
countries agree to honor. Things like using a C in a circle or the word
"Copyright" to denote copyright holder. Things like "All rights
reserved" are implied in the US it isn't covered by the Berne Convention
so it's wise to put it in as some countries do not imply it if it's not
present. It also says that the signatory countries agree to hold the
copyright according to the law of the originating country.
http://www.wipo.org/eng/general/copyrght/bern.htm
for more info
> > Libraries in the US do have special rules, as does academia. I would think
>
> Academia does not have special rules so much as most places that fall into
> that definition sign up to the Copyright Licensing Authority which does
> introduce similar rules to licensees. Libraries get a section in the Act,
> and research and private study does too.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of US Code: Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair use
"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 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."
Section 108 covers reproduction by libraries and archives
Bryan J. Maloney
<mindles...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
> You are using logic in connection with law. Law is not necessarily
> logical. Okay, stop snickering. Law is written by people. The laws are
> whatever is contained within the sentences. It's meaning is whatever a
Not even that--remember case law as well.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Peter Seebach
>Oh sure, converting it to HTML is a lot of work. I was referring to taking
>the digital document and just making an RTF or PDF file out of it. Not too
>difficult it the original is created properly. But adding all those HTML
>links would be a pain.
Perhaps, but even if it's just a PDF, there's still *some* work involved,
and probably enough to count as creating a derivative work, meaning, a
separate copyright.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Peter Seebach
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Copyright doesn't cover how "hard" or "long" it took you. It has to
>do with the expression of an idea.
Right.
>If the expression is exactly the
>same in electronic form as it is in paper form
But it isn't, because it has lots of different bits.
Peter Seebach
Steve Buza <stev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>No. No No. I'm not talking about the Core Rules. I'm talking about
>specifically the Word Help format copy of the Player's Handbook, DMG,
>etc. Not the whole CD. The electronic books are not derivative
>works. They ARE the works.
No, they're derivative works. They're new expressions based on the material
from the old ones.
Peter Seebach
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds <"news"@@@seankreynolds.com> wrote:
>Again: WHO did you talk to about this? We replace damaged stuff quite
>often with proof of the original.
I'd like to support this one: I bought Scarlet Brotherhood, and the map
ripped while I was trying to de-glue it. I wrote and asked, and they sent me
a new map. They didn't even make me prove ownership. Very friendly.
Ken Witherow
> Ken Witherow <k...@krw.penguinpowered.com> wrote:
> %> direction they've been changing is a negative one. Nobody needs 95 years of
> %> copyright, and I'm pretty convinced that the next step is to make copyright
> %> perpetual.
> % I think copyright should return to it's original status of 14 years with
> % an optional 14 if the holder desires. Many films, books, etc are decaying
> % as we speak simply because it's copyright holder doesn't want to share
> % them. 14-28 years is a reasonable amount of time to ensure the creator
> % has a chance to make money off his/her work.
>
> I'd say that's a little short, but there are two separate issues: one, how
> long a copyright is reasonable, and we can argue about that, and two,
> whether published works should be protected for the future public domain
> whether or not the owner wants them supressed. In the latter case, wasn't
> the "2 copies for the library of congress" rule intended in part to protect
> publications for posterity?
Works well for books that were printed on acid free paper but nearly half
of the literary works of the 20th century are crumbling. Also, forget all
those old films who are suffering from decay, etc. The purpose of
copyright falls under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US
Constitution
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;"
14-28 years seems a reasonable enough amount of time to encourage people
to create new works.
> % Distribution without authorization is still illegal despite how minor it
> % is under copyright law.
>
> Illegal is irrelevant if it's unenforceable and indeed, if the violation is
> unproveable. The important thing in that case is to only do it if you know
> for sure your friend had a legit copy, and two, if you know them well enough
> to know they're not going to be an idiot about it.
It's not unenforcible, merely unlikely to be enforced. Say you gave your
friend a copy of the RTF of a book which he then posted to the
internet. Upon discovery of the violation, the publisher and FBI note that
he somehow gained a copy of something he likely didn't create for himself
but doesn't own the medium that it was distributed on. They will then
pressure him to blow in the source( you ).
Unenforcible would be something more like the Whiskey Rebellion. Civil
disobedience can help bring change but if you're in violation of the law,
regardless of how minor, it's still a violation so don't expect to
necessarily get off scot-free if you're busted. The best thing to do in
this case is to tell your representatives and the publisher how you feel
and encourage others to do the same.
Ken Witherow
> In article <8bpgjt$j1k$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, Don <?@?.?> wrote:
> >Oh sure, converting it to HTML is a lot of work. I was referring to taking
> >the digital document and just making an RTF or PDF file out of it. Not too
> >difficult it the original is created properly. But adding all those HTML
> >links would be a pain.
>
> Perhaps, but even if it's just a PDF, there's still *some* work involved,
> and probably enough to count as creating a derivative work, meaning, a
> separate copyright.
Placing it in a different medium/format would presumably be akin to
translating it which falls under "derivative work"
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101
"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
such as translation, musical arrangement, dramatization..."
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
"Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this
title has the exclusive rights to do and authorize any of the following:
...
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
..."
Thus, you need authorization from the original copyright holder to do a
derivative work.
The amount of work you personally put into a derivative work has no effect
on whether you own the copyright on the portions derived from the original
work unless you are granted an explicit license to create the derivative
from the original copyright holder. Just because some of your work may
contain derivative work which belongs to the original copyright holder
doesn't mean they own the copyright on the material which you created that
is not a derivative of their work( ie, the stuff you created yourself
which didn't use their work is copyright you ).
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Placing it in a different medium/format would presumably be akin to
> translating it which falls under "derivative work"
I would doubt it in the UK, since the law makes little to no distinction
about making paper and electronic format copies as to what is or isn;t a
breach. Given that to make an electronic copy requires you to go through a
twist into some code to display it then HTML or RTF are not going to be
any different than scanning it in, they all put it into a 'code' of some
kind used to generate the display. A scan throws it into one format, OCR
scan another, RTF a further, but they all contain the old info ie
substantially the same.. it'll be 'a copy'. At a stretch you could make
the adaptation line, but since all that really does if give the original
copyright owner control over the bits of their work that goes into the new
document, if its not substantially changed it'll get ruled that its the
same work, RTF and HTML tagging notwithstanding, as they are carriers of
the info.
I think what is going to apply to the Core rules CD is these new
publication rights, whicvh I know little to nothing about but they are
used to protect a specific publicatin type of a given copyright info (and
can be used to protect publications of material that has become public
domain in some way from what I've read of them...) These rules get real
complex here...
Steve Buza
Not precisely. It shows that the burden of proof of "intent" can be
placed on the infringer. Not the burden of proof of licensure. There
is a substantial difference here.
Steve
Steve Buza
<tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I'd feel like I was skating on thin ice if I had no original material to
>prove my burned CD was a legal copy, on the other hand if I had packaging,
>borken original manuals etc and had lost the license I would expect that
>to prove reasonably that I had bought it....plus of course I could get
>bank records for the transaction.
To clarify, I have the original CD. It is in two pieces. I don't
have the manuals or box anymore, but I do have the sales receipt as
well. I think that is substantial proof of licensure in any event.
Steve
Steve Buza
<skr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Steve Buza wrote:
>> Just to caution others, WoTC was unwilling to replace my CD for ANY
>> fee less than full purchase of a new license even though I was willing
>> to send them my broken CD as proof of my purchase.
>
>Again: WHO did you talk to about this? We replace damaged stuff quite
>often with proof of the original.
Hmmm. Whoever answered the phone? I didn't take a name. I'll call
back on this.
Thanks
Steve
Ken Witherow
> Not precisely. It shows that the burden of proof of "intent" can be
> placed on the infringer. Not the burden of proof of licensure. There
> is a substantial difference here.
Point being that a civil case has a much lower standard of evidence than a
criminal case and there is no standard of innocent until proven
guilty. Guilt is based on a mere perponderence of the evidence. When they
show the "backup copy(ies)", they've proven you have "backup copies" so
you need to prove they were legitimate backups of something you have the
license to( by presenting the original material(s) even if they're broken
or by a receipt, license, etc ). They aren't going to bring you to court
if they think you have a license( unless they're trying to bully you like
some very well funded corps/groups tend to do (see DVD/DeCSS,
eToys/etoy, UNISYS/GIF(lzw), Mattel/cphack, Amazon/One-click, RIAA/mpeg,
etc )).