If they are making a effort to exactly duplicate the photo, then they
end up being considered having violated the copyright on the previous
photo. If it was accidental, then the courts end up deciding that one.
Also, there needs to be a check into how long copyright lasts on
software. Everyone has been tossing around the lifetime + 75 years
figure as if it applies to everything. Last I knew, the copyright
length depended on WHAT was being copyrighted. (Not copywritten, as
I've heard a few people say...)
-------------
Okay, I just checked the SIIA (Software & Information Industry
Association), and they say this:
How long does copyright last?
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, signed into law on October
27, 1998, amends the provisions concerning duration of copyright
protection. Effective immediately, the terms of copyright are generally
extended for an additional 20 years. Specific provisions are as follows:
For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection will
endure for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. In the
case of a joint work, the term lasts for 70 years after the last
surviving author's death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works
made for hire, the term will be 95 years from the year of first
publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever expires
first;
For works created but not published or registered before January 1,
1978, the term endures for life of the author plus 70 years, but in no
case will expire earlier than December 31, 2002. If the work is
published before December 31, 2002, the term will not expire before
December 31, 2047;
For pre-1978 works still in their original or renewal term of copyright,
the total term is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was
originally secured.
--------------
So yeah, what we really need to do is have some programmers start
working on redoing a number of these programs. But, for protection,
they should be written by programmers who have never worked with the
program before, so that (if it ever actually went to court) there could
be no claims of theft of code.
...or if you could heavily document your reverse engineering attempts,
you'd cover yourself then...
Once I free up some time, I intend on entering the ranks of the noble
breed of Newton Programmers. But not immediately...darn it...
Keith McComb
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric L. Strobel [mailto:fyzycyst_at_home.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:50 PM
To: newtontalk_at_newtontalk.net
Subject: Re: [NTLK] Shareware/Freeware Licenses
at the temporal coordinates: 9/7/01 1:22 PM, the entity known as Jon
Glass
at jonglass_at_usa.net conveyed the following:
>=20
> on 9/7/01 3:24 AM, Eric L. Strobel at fyzycyst_at_home.com wrote:
>=20
>> we're trying to find a legitimate way of doing something other
>> than say "too bad, so sad."
>=20
> I'm trying to avoid this discussion, but here is a question.
>=20
> What if, unfortunately, the only legitimate way _is_ to say "to bad,
so
> sad." What then, eh? Is this something that people are willing to do?
Or,
> then does it become, well, we are going to do what we want (or think
we
> need). I think this needs to be seriously considered. What if our
choices
> are limited to this?
>=20
> In a like vein, somebody quoted somebody else, with the upshot that
> copyright exists to forward sceience and the arts, etc. That
protecting the
> original works allows it to be propogated, thus furthering the ends of
> science. In application to the Newton, couldn't some of us write new
> software based on these older models, without using their code? This
would
> sound reasonable, especially if they could correct those niggling
problems
> that all software seems to have.:-)
I believe you have it absolutely right. If, after all this debate it is
determined that, if no copyright holder can be reached or if they choose
to
not answer with a clear yes/no equals "too bad, so sad", then that's
what we
have to live with and go on from there.. And yes, my suggestion was
going
to be just as you suggest -- the abandonware becomes an opportunity for
someone to duplicate the capabilities.
Which leads to more interesting questions. Using the photography
example
raised in another message, a photo is a copyrighted work and if the
holder
vanishes completely, then that photo is forever (well, at least for all
practical purposes) locked away from use due to current copyright law.
But
what if another photographer manages to shoot the same object under
essentially the same lighting conditions and manages to get the exposure
and
everything to be very similar to the earlier work. Has the copyright on
the
first photo been violated? I suspect that this is an area where an
incredible amount of hair splitting goes on.
- Eric.
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=3Dunsubscribe-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:34 EDT