Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Copyright, archiving, and console games Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test74 (May 26, 2000) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Originator: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Date: 15 Sep 2002 23:11:24 GMT Lines: 36 Message-ID: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 03eab1c8.news.plethora.net X-Trace: 1032131484 gemini.plethora.net 79553 seebs@205.166.146.8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@plethora.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!gemini.plethora.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116793 It occurs to me that console games are having the same problem that other computers are, in that old data becomes very hard to read... only with consoles, it becomes inaccessible much faster. To a certain extent, this can be resolved by emulation, but here we run into copyright law; even assuming that an emulator for the Super Nintendo can be managed, and assuming a technical means to copy the data off of a cartridge, it's almost certainly illegal to do so for another 75 years... by which time it will probably be technically impossible. This is depressing. Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" this problem? One concrete problem is that, even if we assume legislative will to accomplish this, I can't for the life of me come up with a clear and unambiguous way to explain why I think that the old Sega "Shining Force" cartridge should probably be free to copy, but new playstation games shouldn't. The intention would be to allow for the copying of things which are "obsolete and about to be come unreadable"... but this is sort of hard to specify in precise terms, especially when age is not a direct indicator of accessibility. (For instance, dreamcast games are much harder to run today than playstation games.) I recently unearthed a couple of boxes of old console games, and it's really fun... but very depressing to find out that part of a series was never released outside of Japan, and that even if I had a spare console to experiment with modifying to play import games, and could read Japanese, the necessary parts simply no longer exist. I guess this is, in a way, an argument for PC games, but I'd really love to see emulation of old computers gain broader acceptance. -s -- Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net $ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists. C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/ ###### Message-ID: <3D856A83.2080706@beagle-ears.com> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:22:11 -0700 From: Lars Poulsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: da,en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 42 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.154.106.6 X-Trace: azure.impulse.net 1032153732 188 207.154.106.6 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!peer.news.opaltelecom.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.online.be!sienna.impulse.net!azure.impulse.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116748 Peter Seebach wrote: > Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" this problem? > One concrete problem is that, even if we assume legislative > will to accomplish this, I can't for the life of me come up > with a clear and unambiguous way to explain why I think that > the old Sega "Shining Force" cartridge should probably be > free to copy, but new playstation games shouldn't. The narrowly defined answer is "just do it". When you believe strongly that the law does not make sense, you ignore it. This seems to be a fairly robust concept in US constitutional law. > The intention would be to allow for the copying of things which > are "obsolete and about to be come unreadable"... but this is sort of hard > to specify in precise terms, especially when age is not a direct indicator > of accessibility. (For instance, dreamcast games are much harder to run > today than playstation games.) We really should revise copyright law to dramatically shorten some of the time constants. Computer programs should probably pass into the public domain after 7 years, sooner if the publisher goes out of business without designating a successor. It also makes sense to me, that asserting copyright on a computer program should require the archiving of a source kit that allows rebuilding of the product. And that making copies available should be a prerequisite for upholding copyright. There are very few programs of commercial significance for which a 7 year old version has business value. The controversy arises when we try to apply similar notions to "the arts". -- / Lars Poulsen +1-805-569-5277 http://www.beagle-ears.com/lars/ 125 South Ontare Rd, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 USA lars@beagle-ears.com ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3D856A83.2080706@beagle-ears.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:52:36 -0400 Lines: 46 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d85f035$1_1@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1032187957 204.250.0.238 (16 Sep 2002 10:52:37 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!66.250.146.10.MISMATCH!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116741 "Lars Poulsen" wrote in message = news:3D856A83.2080706@beagle-ears.com... > Peter Seebach wrote: >=20 > > Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" this problem?=20 > > One concrete problem is that, even if we assume legislative > > will to accomplish this, I can't for the life of me come up >=20 > > with a clear and unambiguous way to explain why I think that > > the old Sega "Shining Force" cartridge should probably be > > free to copy, but new playstation games shouldn't. >=20 > The narrowly defined answer is "just do it". When you believe > strongly that the law does not make sense, you ignore it. > This seems to be a fairly robust concept in US constitutional > law. Agreed. =20 > > The intention would be to allow for the copying of things which > > are "obsolete and about to be come unreadable"... but this is sort = of hard > > to specify in precise terms, especially when age is not a direct = indicator > > of accessibility. (For instance, dreamcast games are much harder to = run > > today than playstation games.) >=20 >=20 > We really should revise copyright law to dramatically shorten > some of the time constants. Computer programs should probably > pass into the public domain after 7 years, sooner if the > publisher goes out of business without designating a successor. > It also makes sense to me, that asserting copyright on a computer > program should require the archiving of a source kit that allows > rebuilding of the product. And that making copies available should > be a prerequisite for upholding copyright. Doubly agreed... I might be willing to provide for a 10-year term. But lately, some computer companies have begun trying to use the copyrights they hold on manuals as a way to extend the now-lapsed patents they once held on hardware. This practice is unconscionable and the courts should put an end to it if the legislature won't. -dq ###### Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:49:14 +0200 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Message-ID: <20020916184914.21827f65.steveo@eircom.net> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3D856A83.2080706@beagle-ears.com> X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.8.1 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 Organization: Wanadoo NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Sep 2002 17:00:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: rot2-p2108.dial.wanadoo.nl X-Trace: DXC=FSOc5Hc wrote: LP> The narrowly defined answer is "just do it". When you believe LP> strongly that the law does not make sense, you ignore it. LP> This seems to be a fairly robust concept in US constitutional LP> law. I have recently read an argument which claims that while this is indeed appropriate you should expect to be punished for doing so and that the real protest is to clog the courts and jails with convictions for something most people would be happy to tolerate and thus highlight the issue. The argument ran on to suggest that ignoring a law and expecting to get away with it was acting against the law as a whole. I found it hard to refute, but I am far from convinced. -- C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see: | http://www.sohara.org/ ###### From: shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: 16 Sep 2002 10:05:26 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 170.121.15.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1032195927 17469 127.0.0.1 (16 Sep 2002 17:05:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Sep 2002 17:05:27 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116802 seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote in message news:<3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>... > I recently unearthed a couple of boxes of old console games, and it's really > fun... but very depressing to find out that part of a series was never > released outside of Japan, and that even if I had a spare console to > experiment with modifying to play import games, and could read Japanese, the > necessary parts simply no longer exist. I cannot help you address the legal questions, but can you detail the technical probems (e.g. which "necessary parts simply no longer exist"?) Suitable (or superior) substitute parts.techniques may very well be available. Tim. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: 16 Sep 2002 20:26:13 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 79 Message-ID: <6uwuplsse2.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1032200773 948 10.0.3.2 (16 Sep 2002 18:26:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Sep 2002 18:26:13 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116818 seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes: > It occurs to me that console games are having the same problem that other > computers are, in that old data becomes very hard to read... only with > consoles, it becomes inaccessible much faster. The same problem exists BTW also in many other media. Just look at the state of early movie originals that are turning to goo, at the moment, and no one can restore them before it is too late because copyright makes it impossible to do so. This is called the abandonware problem, BTW. > This is depressing. Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" this > problem? One concrete problem is that, even if we assume legislative will to > accomplish this, Forget legislation. Congress measures the importance of an law on the base of how much campaing donaitions its lobby group brings with it. In copyright the largest donations are for ever more. History has no lobby. Present (since 5 years) trend is to eliminate passing into the public forever (by protecting deliberate non-copyability and declaring it illegal to even publish information how to make it copyable). So you, like all others interested in preserving history of "content" are going to have to break the law. Luckily enough you will not be trampling on someones profit plan, so they will most likely ignore you. But publishing info on todays mechanisms, so that one can save their games in 10 years will be a problem. > I can't for the life of me come up with a clear and > unambiguous way to explain why I think that the old Sega "Shining Force" > cartridge should probably be free to copy, but new playstation games > shouldn't. Actually easy: 1. Without copyright everyone can copy 2. Copyright forbids this to help the author/publisher get paid by being able to sell more copies 3. Becaue of loss of 1 the author/publisher must provide copies This is in fitting with aim 2, they want to sell 4. If the author/publisher does not want to sell, then they are not profiting from 2 anyway, so they have no need for it 5. So the their copyright should simply vanish, when they stop selling copies for some time > but this is sort of hard > to specify in precise terms, "A work ceases to be copyrighted, if the copyright holder has not sold copies for n years." (With suggested n of 5, enough to prevent losing due to temporary hickups). Seems precise enough to me. And completely compliant with what copyright is intended for. Gives the Sega games freedom, and still protects the PS games. > I guess this is, in a way, an argument for PC games, but I'd really love to > see emulation of old computers gain broader acceptance. And console games are also a part of culture anyway, and as such save-worthy like everything else. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Programmer, Archer, Roleplayer - Make your code truely free: put it into the public domain ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: 16 Sep 2002 20:41:21 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 53 Message-ID: <6uu1kpsrou.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3D856A83.2080706@beagle-ears.com> <20020916184914.21827f65.steveo@eircom.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1032201681 957 10.0.3.2 (16 Sep 2002 18:41:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Sep 2002 18:41:21 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116819 Steve O'Hara-Smith writes: > Lars Poulsen wrote: > > LP> The narrowly defined answer is "just do it". When you believe > LP> strongly that the law does not make sense, you ignore it. > LP> This seems to be a fairly robust concept in US constitutional > LP> law. > > I have recently read an argument which claims that while this is > indeed appropriate you should expect to be punished s/expect to be punished/acknowledge that there is a risk of being punnished/ Of course this can be calculated like any other risk, including the possibility of misscalculations. > for doing so and that > the real protest is to clog the courts and jails with convictions for Seems an expensive method -> not attractive. > issue. The argument ran on to suggest that ignoring a law and expecting > to get away with it was acting against the law as a whole. No need for it to go away, just need to force people to not use it. For that the best recipy is a few large PR desasters for the plaintiffs. Extreme case see the etoys.com vs etoy.com case (also known as the "Toywar") and how the public reaction killed etoys.com (the attacker) by driving there shares down to near-zero. Note that in that case an just law (trademark) was being used, but with an totally phoney allegation (etoys.com claiming etoy.com to be infringing, despite etoy.com being older and well known before etoys.com was even founded). When prospective plaintiffs first ask their PR people "will this blow up in our face, does the public accept our desire" and only after that ask their lawyer "is there a law we can use", then the existance of an bad law becomes irrelevant. > I found it hard to refute, but I am far from convinced. Is the target to stop getting sued, or to have an "nice" law book? -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Programmer, Archer, Roleplayer - Make your code truely free: put it into the public domain ###### Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 23:07:59 +0200 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Message-ID: <20020916230759.69add0fe.steveo@eircom.net> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3D856A83.2080706@beagle-ears.com> <20020916184914.21827f65.steveo@eircom.net> <6uu1kpsrou.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.8.1 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 Organization: Wanadoo NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Sep 2002 21:41:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: p3448.vwr.wanadoo.nl X-Trace: DXC=6L77e7aTc6aHSj?MfBemJe1`\LnN2UYYa5B0RS7nBIVekP@QO`nIa0`U>523`[<9De X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.nl Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2.euro.net!postnews1.euro.net!news.wanadoo.nl!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116832 On 16 Sep 2002 20:41:21 +0200 Neil Franklin wrote: NF> > issue. The argument ran on to suggest that ignoring a law and NF> > expecting to get away with it was acting against the law as a whole. NF> NF> No need for it to go away, just need to force people to not use it. I think you misunderstand s/law as a whole/entire legal framework/. -- C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see: | http://www.sohara.org/ ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Tue, 17 Sep 02 09:58:51 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3D856A83.2080706@beagle-ears.com> <3d85f035$1_1@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZbKff4FO+LgdTELGLzn3JgwlJ0AVIUYAcgAnrIa/FKnAQvTC3ZWW5j X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Sep 2002 11:12:50 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!giga-nspixp2!newsfeed.gol.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!208-59-181-92 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116867 In article <3d85f035$1_1@news.iglou.com>, "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote: >"Lars Poulsen" wrote in message news:3D856A83.2080706@beagle-ears.com... >> Peter Seebach wrote: >> >> > Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" this problem? >> > One concrete problem is that, even if we assume legislative >> > will to accomplish this, I can't for the life of me come up >> >> > with a clear and unambiguous way to explain why I think that >> > the old Sega "Shining Force" cartridge should probably be >> > free to copy, but new playstation games shouldn't. >> >> The narrowly defined answer is "just do it". When you believe >> strongly that the law does not make sense, you ignore it. >> This seems to be a fairly robust concept in US constitutional >> law. > >Agreed. > >> > The intention would be to allow for the copying of things which >> > are "obsolete and about to be come unreadable"... but this is sort of hard >> > to specify in precise terms, especially when age is not a direct indicator >> > of accessibility. (For instance, dreamcast games are much harder to run >> > today than playstation games.) >> >> >> We really should revise copyright law to dramatically shorten >> some of the time constants. Computer programs should probably >> pass into the public domain after 7 years, sooner if the >> publisher goes out of business without designating a successor. >> It also makes sense to me, that asserting copyright on a computer >> program should require the archiving of a source kit that allows >> rebuilding of the product. And that making copies available should >> be a prerequisite for upholding copyright. > >Doubly agreed... I might be willing to provide for a 10-year term. >But lately, some computer companies have begun trying to use the >copyrights they hold on manuals as a way to extend the now-lapsed >patents they once held on hardware. This practice is unconscionable >and the courts should put an end to it if the legislature won't. I don't have any problem with companies who are still trying to use the stuff. I do have problems with companies who methodically destroy what they don't want to maintain. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: "Keith F. Lynch" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: 16 Sep 2002 20:45:28 -0400 Organization: United Individualist Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix1.panix.com X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1032223529 5956 166.84.1.1 (17 Sep 2002 00:45:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:45:29 +0000 (UTC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!panix!panix1.panix.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116864 Peter Seebach wrote: > To a certain extent, this can be resolved by emulation, but here we > run into copyright law; even assuming that an emulator for the Super > Nintendo can be managed, and assuming a technical means to copy the > data off of a cartridge, it's almost certainly illegal to do so for > another 75 years... Aren't backups for personal use considered "fair use," just like making video recordings of TV shows for one's own use? > by which time it will probably be technically impossible. Why should that be? If all else fails, keeping the cartridges in liquid nitrogen should keep them readable for centuries. > The intention would be to allow for the copying of things which > are "obsolete and about to be come unreadable"... but this is sort > of hard to specify in precise terms, especially when age is not a > direct indicator of accessibility. (For instance, dreamcast games > are much harder to run today than playstation games.) How difficult is it to get permission from the copyright owner? How is Brewster Kahle able to create an Internet Archive without running afoul of copyright laws? -- Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/ I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread. ###### From: Charles Shannon Hendrix Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:18:38 -0400 Organization: Too Much Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Reply-To: shannon@nospam.widomaker.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 16 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!escape!nobody Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116843 In article <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach wrote: > This is depressing. Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" this > problem? One concrete problem is that, even if we assume legislative will to Yes, pirate the stuff and the hell with the copyright owners. Keep in mind that if you do not allow fair use, then you forfiet your copyright. It's a two way street, no matter how many Disneyites whine otherwise. You can get just about every ROM out there on the net here and there. I routinely archive them just in case they go away, though I've gotten way behind. ###### From: Radovan Garabik Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:45:11 +0200 Lines: 47 Sender: Radovan Garabik Message-ID: <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: atlas15.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk (158.195.25.215) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032272504 3461245 158.195.25.215 (16 [89407]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.17-grsecurity-1.9.2+xfs+unicodedeadkeys+pspa (i686)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!atlas15.dnp.fmph.uniba.SK!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116903 Keith F. Lynch wrote: : Peter Seebach wrote: :> To a certain extent, this can be resolved by emulation, but here we :> run into copyright law; even assuming that an emulator for the Super :> Nintendo can be managed, and assuming a technical means to copy the :> data off of a cartridge, it's almost certainly illegal to do so for :> another 75 years... : Aren't backups for personal use considered "fair use," just like : making video recordings of TV shows for one's own use? :> by which time it will probably be technically impossible. : Why should that be? : If all else fails, keeping the cartridges in liquid nitrogen should : keep them readable for centuries. no, since cosmic ray particles would still run through them and sooner or later there will be a particle with enough energy to flip a bit on (E)PROM :> The intention would be to allow for the copying of things which :> are "obsolete and about to be come unreadable"... but this is sort :> of hard to specify in precise terms, especially when age is not a :> direct indicator of accessibility. (For instance, dreamcast games :> are much harder to run today than playstation games.) : How difficult is it to get permission from the copyright owner? you mean, if the copyright owner does not exist anymore? (I do not buy an argument that he won't sue you if he is out of business - your competition (or neighbour who hates you) can do that) : How is Brewster Kahle able to create an Internet Archive without : running afoul of copyright laws? Perhaps nobody sued him yet? -- ----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabík http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ fmph . uniba . sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread! ###### From: "x" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Lines: 42 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:48:42 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.120.123.205 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.nl X-Trace: zwoll1.home.nl 1032273862 212.120.123.205 (Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:44:22 MEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:44:22 MEST Organization: @Home Network Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!news-x2.support.nl!newshub1.nl.home.com!news.nl.home.com!zwoll1.home.nl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116879 "Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message news:am5tv8$50o$1@panix1.panix.com... > Peter Seebach wrote: > > To a certain extent, this can be resolved by emulation, but here we > > run into copyright law; even assuming that an emulator for the Super > > Nintendo can be managed, and assuming a technical means to copy the > > data off of a cartridge, it's almost certainly illegal to do so for > > another 75 years... > > Aren't backups for personal use considered "fair use," just like > making video recordings of TV shows for one's own use? > > > by which time it will probably be technically impossible. > > Why should that be? > > If all else fails, keeping the cartridges in liquid nitrogen should > keep them readable for centuries. > > > The intention would be to allow for the copying of things which > > are "obsolete and about to be come unreadable"... but this is sort > > of hard to specify in precise terms, especially when age is not a > > direct indicator of accessibility. (For instance, dreamcast games > > are much harder to run today than playstation games.) > > How difficult is it to get permission from the copyright owner? > > How is Brewster Kahle able to create an Internet Archive without > running afoul of copyright laws? > -- He takes down contens of wich the owner objects it to be archived. That's something many people with illegal/abandonware do, often you read something like 'If the owner objects I'll immediately take it down'. -- ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Thu, 19 Sep 02 10:46:09 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> <3d89af57_1@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVb83S7Zo4LPQSnPOJlRifNeeBISfBpmvx+zqMCzVt1Povy91qto7WXa X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 2002 12:00:29 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!syros.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!jpix!newsfeed.gol.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!207-172-102-14 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116988 In article <3d89af57_1@news.iglou.com>, "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote: >"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message news:ambaq1$7bp$1@panix1.panix.com... >> Radovan Garabik wrote: >> > you mean, if the copyright owner does not exist anymore? >> >> If no copyright owner exists, then the work is in the public domain. > >Under what circumstances would there be no holder >to the copyright? Sometimes, people abandon cars >on the side of the road because they break down. >That's true abandonment. > >But when companies belly-up, their property ends >up in *someone's* hands... true, in some cases >you might be looking at such a tangled web of >ownership, that the cost of determining *who* >owns the copyrights could exceed the total value >of the copyrights themselves (including potential >revenues from lawsuits). But that doesn't mean >the property is abandoned. Look, you guys are talking about two different things. Establishing an ownership (which is just a piece of paper) to material does not mean that the holder of that piece of paper has the material. That's what Peter was talking about. Business these days don't notice that the material is gone until they try to sell it. If they never get to the selling part, they'll never know their property is just a piece of paper will pretty words. Reducing the years in copyright law does NOT address the problem. We're talking about something that can't be inventoried by a person with a clipboard. Bits aren't touchable. Lack of bits aren't detectable unless accessed. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Sender: Theo Markettos From: Theo Markettos Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <6uwuplsse2.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Organization: University of Cambridge, England User-Agent: tin/1.5.10-20011117 ("Darkcell") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.20 (i686)) Originator: theom@chiark.greenend.org.uk ([212.135.138.206]) Date: 18 Sep 2002 14:27:19 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <-tt*n-Hyp@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.135.138.206 X-Trace: 1032355651 21873 212.135.138.206 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!teaser.fr!easynet-quince!easynet.net!easynet-post1!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117127 Neil Franklin wrote: > "A work ceases to be copyrighted, if the copyright holder has not sold > copies for n years." (With suggested n of 5, enough to prevent losing > due to temporary hickups). What about versions of a work? Say I want to copy MS DOS 1.0, and Microsoft come along and sue me, on the basis that this is available as Windows XP. Is this fair? The flip side of this is that if a company hasn't done much to a work in the last few years - say SomeApp 1.23.5 has been sold for the last 5 years, but SomeApp 1.23.4 released previously would then pass into the public domain - would they be able to stop this? Would it be fair if they could not? I suppose this all depends on the definition of 'work'... Theo -- Theo Markettos theo@markettos.org.uk Liphook, Hampshire, UK theom@chiark.greenend.org.uk http://www.markettos.org.uk/ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> From: Russell Marks Lines: 50 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: Date: 18 Sep 2002 15:28:45 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.8.207 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net 1032359330 62.252.8.207 (Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:28:50 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:28:50 BST Organization: ntlworld News Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116932 seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote: > It occurs to me that console games are having the same problem that other > computers are, in that old data becomes very hard to read... only with > consoles, it becomes inaccessible much faster. > > To a certain extent, this can be resolved by emulation, but here we run into > copyright law; even assuming that an emulator for the Super Nintendo can be > managed, and assuming a technical means to copy the data off of a cartridge, > it's almost certainly illegal to do so for another 75 years... by which time > it will probably be technically impossible. I would (naively?) imagine that cartridges *might* stand a chance, but for tape-based machines like Sinclair's ZX81 or Spectrum this would unquestionably be a major problem by then. > This is depressing. Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" this Cut the time for which copyright persists by a factor of 5, or even 10. I think 5 is the practical minimum if we want to stand a chance of saving all this stuff legally. There's no way that's ever going to happen, but I think that's what's required. The only alternative I can see is illegal copying, which is widespread but hardly seems the ideal way to preserve something long-term. That said, if any copyright *does* ever expire again (which isn't something that'll happen while Disney exist), both legal and illegal copies will equally be public domain. Or at least, that's how it seems to me. > problem? One concrete problem is that, even if we assume legislative will to > accomplish this, I can't for the life of me come up with a clear and > unambiguous way to explain why I think that the old Sega "Shining Force" > cartridge should probably be free to copy, but new playstation games I tend to think along the same lines (and about as vaguely). But FWIW, Sega does still seem to be making money from their old games. They have a collection of old Sonic games soon to be released on the Gamecube, for example, and they've released various `retro' compilations before. > I guess this is, in a way, an argument for PC games, but I'd really love to > see emulation of old computers gain broader acceptance. The acceptance of emulation is pretty broad already. Even commercially, I know Sega and Namco have both used emulation (and there are surely other examples). Copyright is still the real problem, I think, and PC games don't solve that. -Rus. ###### From: "Keith F. Lynch" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: 18 Sep 2002 21:55:13 -0400 Organization: United Individualist Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix1.panix.com X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1032400514 3725 166.84.1.1 (19 Sep 2002 01:55:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!panix!panix1.panix.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117018 Radovan Garabik wrote: > you mean, if the copyright owner does not exist anymore? If no copyright owner exists, then the work is in the public domain. -- Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/ I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread. ###### From: "Keith F. Lynch" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: 18 Sep 2002 22:00:08 -0400 Organization: United Individualist Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix1.panix.com X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1032400808 3842 166.84.1.1 (19 Sep 2002 02:00:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:00:08 +0000 (UTC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!panix!panix1.panix.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116985 x wrote: > He takes down contens of wich the owner objects it to be archived. Could you rephrase that in standard English? Thanks. -- Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/ I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread. ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 07:04:54 -0400 Lines: 26 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d89af57_1@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1032433495 204.250.0.238 (19 Sep 2002 07:04:55 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116945 "Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message = news:ambaq1$7bp$1@panix1.panix.com... > Radovan Garabik wrote: > > you mean, if the copyright owner does not exist anymore? >=20 > If no copyright owner exists, then the work is in the public domain. Under what circumstances would there be no holder to the copyright? Sometimes, people abandon cars on the side of the road because they break down. That's true abandonment. But when companies belly-up, their property ends up in *someone's* hands... true, in some cases you might be looking at such a tangled web of ownership, that the cost of determining *who* owns the copyrights could exceed the total value of the copyrights themselves (including potential revenues from lawsuits). But that doesn't mean the property is abandoned. I'm not a lawyer, but I play one in my mind, well enough to intimidate at least one real lawyer... -dq ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 07:06:24 -0400 Lines: 14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d89afb1$1_3@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1032433585 204.250.0.238 (19 Sep 2002 07:06:25 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116964 "Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message = news:ambb38$8f6$1@panix1.panix.com... > x wrote: > > He takes down contens of wich the owner objects it to be archived. >=20 > Could you rephrase that in standard English? Thanks. Presumptious to speak for someone else, I suppose, but what he said, was, that if an owner of a copyrighted work objects to the work's presence on his web site, he removes it from said site. -dq ###### From: "x" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d89afb1$1_3@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Lines: 26 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:54:01 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.120.123.205 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.nl X-Trace: zwoll1.home.nl 1032436167 212.120.123.205 (Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:49:27 MEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:49:27 MEST Organization: @Home Network Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!news-x2.support.nl!newshub1.nl.home.com!news.nl.home.com!zwoll1.home.nl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117059 "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote in message news:3d89afb1$1_3@news.iglou.com... >"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message news:ambb38$8f6$1@panix1.panix.com... >> x wrote: >> > He takes down contens of wich the owner objects it to be archived. >> >> Could you rephrase that in standard English? Thanks. > >Presumptious to speak for someone else, I suppose, but >what he said, was, that if an owner of a copyrighted work >objects to the work's presence on his web site, he removes >it from said site. > >-dq Exactly! Anyway, I'm sorry to cause confusion. English is not my native language. But to digress; is it really grammatically wrong? Except for the missing t in contents? -- T ###### From: Ian Stirling Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> NNTP-Posting-Host: mauve.demon.co.uk X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1032445922 16807 158.152.209.66 (19 Sep 2002 14:32:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Originator: root@mauve.demon.co.uk User-Agent: tin/1.5.6-20000803 ("Dust") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.18 (i686)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mauve.demon.co.uk!root Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117109 Keith F. Lynch wrote: > > Radovan Garabik wrote: >> you mean, if the copyright owner does not exist anymore? > > If no copyright owner exists, then the work is in the public domain. I was under the impression that in the case of a corporate owner, if a company (with no debtors, or buyers of the rights) was wound up, then the copyright passed to the state, like any other asset. Is this incorrect? -- http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inquisitor@i.am | Ian Stirling. ---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------- Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that I cannot change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off. - Random ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> <3d89af57_1@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:52:49 -0400 Lines: 67 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d89f2d2$1_2@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1032450770 204.250.0.238 (19 Sep 2002 11:52:50 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!66.250.146.10.MISMATCH!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116953 wrote in message = news:amce8t$129$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > In article <3d89af57_1@news.iglou.com>, > "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote: > >"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message=20 > news:ambaq1$7bp$1@panix1.panix.com... > >> Radovan Garabik wrote: > >> > you mean, if the copyright owner does not exist anymore? > >>=20 > >> If no copyright owner exists, then the work is in the public = domain. > > > >Under what circumstances would there be no holder > >to the copyright? Sometimes, people abandon cars > >on the side of the road because they break down. > >That's true abandonment. > > > >But when companies belly-up, their property ends > >up in *someone's* hands... true, in some cases > >you might be looking at such a tangled web of > >ownership, that the cost of determining *who* > >owns the copyrights could exceed the total value > >of the copyrights themselves (including potential > >revenues from lawsuits). But that doesn't mean > >the property is abandoned. >=20 > Look, you guys are talking about two different things. =20 > Establishing an ownership (which is just a piece of paper) > to material does not mean that the holder of that piece > of paper has the material. That's what Peter was talking > about. Business these days don't notice that the material > is gone until they try to sell it. If they never get to > the selling part, they'll never know their property is=20 > just a piece of paper will pretty words. Hmmm.... seemed to me when he said: : This is depressing. Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" = this : problem? One concrete problem is that, even if we assume legislative = will to that he wasn't concerned about the technical problem of getting bits out of cartridges, but of the legality of doing so. I know of bits whose ownership is in doubt; I also know of other bits whose ownership is not in doubt. In both cases,=20 the unknown and known owners *don't* have the bits anymore.=20 As has been suggested, I believe archiving these bits should=20 take place regardless of ownership questions, *especially*=20 when the owner doesn't have copies of the bits anymore. But=20 even when they do, because the owners go from having bits to=20 not having bits with a single act. > Reducing the years in copyright law does NOT address the problem. > We're talking about something that can't be inventoried by a person > with a clipboard. Bits aren't touchable. Lack of bits aren't=20 > detectable unless accessed. Reducing the term addresses the problem for those non-owners in posession of some bits who worry (perhaps rightly so) about=20 owner reaction to saving said bits. Otherwise, the archiving is left as an exercise in civil disobedience of an unconscionable=20 law. -dq ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:56:26 -0400 Lines: 26 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1032450993 204.250.0.238 (19 Sep 2002 11:56:33 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:116944 "Ian Stirling" wrote in message = news:amcn52$gd7$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk... > Keith F. Lynch wrote: > >=20 > > Radovan Garabik wrote: > >> you mean, if the copyright owner does not exist anymore? > >=20 > > If no copyright owner exists, then the work is in the public domain. >=20 > I was under the impression that in the case of a corporate owner, if > a company (with no debtors, or buyers of the rights) was wound up, > then the copyright passed to the state, like any other asset. >=20 > Is this incorrect? No, you're right, at very least, in the specific case of a=20 privately-held company, whose owner dies with neither heir nor Last Will and Testament. In this case, ownership passes to the state. But I think that=20 (state ownership of a copyright =3D=3D public domain) evaluates to false. Maybe not... anyone??? -dq ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: 19 Sep 2002 20:52:20 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 54 Message-ID: <6u1y7p7qxn.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <6uwuplsse2.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <-tt*n-Hyp@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1032461540 408 10.0.3.2 (19 Sep 2002 18:52:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 2002 18:52:20 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117176 Theo Markettos writes: > Neil Franklin wrote: > > "A work ceases to be copyrighted, if the copyright holder has not sold > > copies for n years." (With suggested n of 5, enough to prevent losing > > due to temporary hickups). > > What about versions of a work? Legally there exist no such thing as versions. Each version is a separate work. Published at its specific date. > Say I want to copy MS DOS 1.0, and Microsoft > come along and sue me, on the basis that this is available as Windows XP. > Is this fair? a) XP does not contain the entire bits of 1.0 (lots of code was replaced, even in later DOS versions) so there is no base for such sueing b) I doubt people copying 1.0 5 years after MS stopping selling it would cause an significant dent in sales of whatever MS is selling at that time. 5 years progress is quite a lot. 2002-5=1997, what did MS last stop selling before that date? Win3.11? Quite outdated. Not a competitor. c) MS could prevent this by keeping 1.0 on its available for sales list (you can order and get it, so it is not out of availability) Perhaps one would have to replace "not sold copies" with "not offered copies for sale". > The flip side of this is that if a company hasn't done much > to a work in the last few years - say SomeApp 1.23.5 has been sold for the > last 5 years, but SomeApp 1.23.4 released previously would then pass into > the public domain - would they be able to stop this? They could keep 1.23.4 on their sales offer list. The 5 years should start after the work is not made available (= not making profit) any more. This would also allow people to standardise on an version and keep on getting it. > I suppose this all depends on the definition of 'work'... Legally: The work as it was published, any change would be an later edition. Each edition has its own publishing date, and copyright dated from that. And so also would have its own expiry on non-availability. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Programmer, Archer, Roleplayer - Make your code truely free: put it into the public domain ###### From: J. Clarke Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:25:34 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 56 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d89af57_1@news.iglou.com> <3d89f2d2$1_2@news.iglou.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-607.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!feedme.news.mediaways.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117237 In article , my_spamtrap@mac.com says... > Douglas H. Quebbeman wrote: > > > I know of bits whose ownership is in doubt; I also know of > > other bits whose ownership is not in doubt. In both cases, > > the unknown and known owners *don't* have the bits anymore. > > As has been suggested, I believe archiving these bits should > > take place regardless of ownership questions, *especially* > > when the owner doesn't have copies of the bits anymore. But > > even when they do, because the owners go from having bits to > > not having bits with a single act. > > The US copyright statutes do contain specific fair-use exemptions for > libraries and archives that need to make copies of items in their > collection for preservation purposes. You might want to look very > carefully at statute and case law to see if software is treated differently > from other copyright material. (I don't think it is, but, as observant > readers might be tempted to deduce from my .sig, I am not a lawyer.) There is specific statutory exemption to copyright for the purpose of making one archival copy, which copy must be transferred or destroyed if the product of which it is a copy is transferred. This applies specifically to software and nothing else. > Of course this particular fair-use exemption does not in itself give > archives the right to re-distribute copyright material (though, again, > there are other fair-use provisions by which libraries explicitly are > permitted to make copies of certain copyright materials for the use of > patrons who represent themselves as bona fide researchers, and even IIRC to > make copies for other libraries of entire works that are no longer > available commercially). > > Also, in the case of a computer program, the right to copy the program into > a computer's memory for the purpose of running it isn't conferred by the > fair-use exemption, but (as I understand it) by whatever license may have > been granted explicitly or implicitly by the copyright owner (except in the > case of programs that are in the public domain, of course). But what about > code in a ROMs that isn't meant to be copied into the computer's memory? > (The instructions contained in it will of course individually be copied > into the CPU for execution, MOSTLY in the same order in which the occur in > the ROM). > > All in all, it's a very complicated situation, and it's very hard for the > average layperson to get an accurate picture of what the current law > actually permits and forbids. Of course even those learned in the law will > disagree on these questions with some regularity -- which is one reason why > we have litigation and trials. > > -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net) ###### From: bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 05:49:08 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Dragonhill Systems Ltd Lines: 29 Message-ID: <1032460016snz@dsl.co.uk> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d89afb1$1_3@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1032500948 23274 10.0.0.1 (20 Sep 2002 05:49:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 05:49:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from dsl.demon.co.uk ([158.152.92.150]) by news.demon.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17sGf2-00062o-00 for mail2news@news.demon.co.uk; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 05:49:06 +0000 X-Path: dsl.co.uk!bhk X-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk X-Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english X-Followup-To: alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.31 X-Lines: 28 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.vmunix.org!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!bhk Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117268 In article x@x.x "x" writes: > "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote in message > news:3d89afb1$1_3@news.iglou.com... > >"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message > news:ambb38$8f6$1@panix1.panix.com... > >> x wrote: > >> > He takes down contens of wich the owner objects it to be archived. [snip the request for clarification, and the response] > Exactly! > Anyway, I'm sorry to cause confusion. English is not my native language. But > to digress; is it really grammatically wrong? Except for the missing t in > contents? It's extremely ambiguous; for a start, "take down" can have multiple meanings. Ignoring the misspellings, for which you are to be excused, it would have been much clearer if written as: "He removes content which the owner objects to its being archived" [Xp & fu to alt.usage.english & uk.culture.language.english] -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr- easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <6uwuplsse2.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <-tt*n-Hyp@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <6u1y7p7qxn.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:41:31 -0400 Lines: 18 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d8b41ad$1_1@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1032536493 204.250.0.238 (20 Sep 2002 11:41:33 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117188 "Neil Franklin" wrote in message = news:6u1y7p7qxn.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch... >=20 > Perhaps one would have to replace "not sold copies" with "not offered > copies for sale". When a court has to evaluate an alleged infringement, it uses what's = called a "tripartite test" of abstraction, filtration, and comparison. One of = the=20 things this test considers is the willingness and ability of the = copyright holder to make a copy available at a reasonable price. But it's only one tiny consideration, and additionally, that's a test used in U.S. courts. Other nations' courts may not use the same tests. -dq ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d89af57_1@news.iglou.com> <3d89f2d2$1_2@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:54:17 -0400 Lines: 39 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d8b44ac_2@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1032537260 204.250.0.238 (20 Sep 2002 11:54:20 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117185 "Roland Hutchinson" wrote in message = news:amd949$51a79$1@ID-99522.news.dfncis.de... > Douglas H. Quebbeman wrote: >=20 > > I know of bits whose ownership is in doubt; I also know of = [..snippage follows..] >=20 > The US copyright statutes do contain specific fair-use exemptions for=20 > libraries and archives that need to make copies of items in their=20 > collection for preservation purposes. You might want to look very=20 > carefully at statute and case law to see if software is treated = differently=20 > from other copyright material. (I don't think it is, but, as = observant=20 > readers might be tempted to deduce from my .sig, I am not a lawyer.) Statute is primary, but court precedent must also be considered. In = another=20 reply elsewhere in the thread, not thinking about Fair Use, I made = reference to a tripartite test called abstraction, filtration, and comparison. = It's quite=20 complex, but it's not usually used in cases where the defense has = invoked Fair=20 Use doctrine. The four fair use factors are: How will the work be used? What is the nature of the work? How much of the work will be used? What affect on the market for the work will the use have? Here's a good site for more info: http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htm#test -dq ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sat, 21 Sep 02 14:26:17 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <6uwuplsse2.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <-tt*n-Hyp@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <6u1y7p7qxn.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVaJe0TUDpjDGb85GQtsiEuxmTeOLQKgaML7fjPYwtf5R7XGGO9ainOk X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Sep 2002 15:40:55 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!208-59-181-57 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117329 In article <6u1y7p7qxn.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin wrote: >Theo Markettos writes: > >> Neil Franklin wrote: >> > "A work ceases to be copyrighted, if the copyright holder has not sold >> > copies for n years." (With suggested n of 5, enough to prevent losing >> > due to temporary hickups). >> >> What about versions of a work? > >Legally there exist no such thing as versions. Each version is a >separate work. Published at its specific date. Yup. We had to update the copyright years with every release. Thank the bit gods those lawyers didn't think about publishing patches and copyright statements. >Perhaps one would have to replace "not sold copies" with "not offered >copies for sale". I think that's is a much better terminology. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: "Hank Oredson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d89afb1$1_3@news.iglou.com> <1032460016snz@dsl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Lines: 38 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 03:03:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.81.197.71 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1032577399 12.81.197.71 (Sat, 21 Sep 2002 03:03:19 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 03:03:19 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117360 "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" wrote in message news:1032460016snz@dsl.co.uk... > In article x@x.x "x" writes: > > > "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote in message > > news:3d89afb1$1_3@news.iglou.com... > > >"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message > > news:ambb38$8f6$1@panix1.panix.com... > > >> x wrote: > > >> > He takes down contens of wich the owner objects it to be archived. > > [snip the request for clarification, and the response] > > > Exactly! > > Anyway, I'm sorry to cause confusion. English is not my native language. But > > to digress; is it really grammatically wrong? Except for the missing t in > > contents? > > It's extremely ambiguous; for a start, "take down" can have multiple > meanings. Ignoring the misspellings, for which you are to be excused, it > would have been much clearer if written as: > > "He removes content which the owner objects to its being archived" "If the owner of the content objects to it being archived, he removes that content from the archive." -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net ###### From: "Kelli Halliburton" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Lines: 29 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.90.105.116 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr16.news.prodigy.com 1032736966 ST000 166.90.105.116 (Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:22:46 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:22:46 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: [[OERZWGAJPCR^ARGKCBLDLESCVLCUPHQQ]J]Q]KJAVNDQIBLNSQAKKZ@TXZY_KHS^FSKGJLOF_F_N[CXVW[^UDDM^T]HTLIGX\NRRC@O\P^@MD_[S@FH__@WDCUZA^NHD[SJORN]Y_UGKGPJD]WNN[\ESXHWTWIEQYGQLS@[[G\APPF@\@R]SLGRFUAQUFN Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:22:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!feedme.news.mediaways.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.f.de.plusline.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!uio.no!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!207.115.63.138!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr16.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7115ad8a!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117484 "Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message news:ambb38$8f6$1@panix1.panix.com... > x wrote: > > > He takes down contens of wich the owner objects it to be archived. > > Could you rephrase that in standard English? Thanks. Apparently you didn't read x's entire post. To wit: "He takes down contens of wich the owner objects it to be archived. That's something many people with illegal/abandonware do, often you read something like 'If the owner objects I'll immediately take it down'." Now, I realize that x does not appear to have a strong command of English. That's okay; people live in countries where their exposure to English is minimal. But there is enough sense in the original post that I think it's pretty simple to comprehend. In fact, the second sentence is very clear, so much so that it clarifies the first sentence. But if you insist, here's a rephrasing: "He takes down content that the owner objects to being archived." And the second sentence is true; many archivists and librarians of abandonware include notices and disclaimers that they will remove items in their libraries and archives from public access if the copyright owner objects. ###### From: Ian Stirling Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:04:31 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> <3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mauve.demon.co.uk X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1032743071 3474 158.152.209.66 (23 Sep 2002 01:04:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:04:31 +0000 (UTC) Originator: root@mauve.demon.co.uk User-Agent: tin/1.5.6-20000803 ("Dust") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.18 (i686)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!gatel-ffm!proxad.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mauve.demon.co.uk!root Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117555 Kelli Halliburton wrote: > > "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote in message > news:3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com... > >> (state ownership of a copyright == public domain) >> >> evaluates to false. Maybe not... anyone??? > > Actually, the concept of copyright does not apply to the government, as the > government represents the public (in theory, anyway). So, yes, state > ownership of a copyright does indeed equate to public domain. The state does not represent all the public, only the citiznes. I dunno if this actually applies though. -- http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inquisitor@i.am | Ian Stirling. ---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------- Acting is merely the art of stopping a large number of people from coughing - Sir Ralph Richardson ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> <3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:34:45 -0400 Lines: 26 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d8efc56_2@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1032780886 204.250.0.238 (23 Sep 2002 07:34:46 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117492 "Kelli Halliburton" wrote in message = news:O6sj9.128$Pe4.4851921@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote in = message > news:3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com... >=20 > > (state ownership of a copyright =3D=3D public domain) > > > > evaluates to false. Maybe not... anyone??? >=20 > Actually, the concept of copyright does not apply to the government, = as the > government represents the public (in theory, anyway). So, yes, state > ownership of a copyright does indeed equate to public domain. Only last night, I was looking at a map** of a highway in California, prepared by Caltrans, the California Transportation Department. It carried both a standard copyright, and text specifically admonishing people who want to duplicate it to copy Caltrans for permission. Ymmv, etc... -dq ** on the web ###### From: bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:32:24 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Dragonhill Systems Ltd Lines: 24 Message-ID: <1032849039snz@dsl.co.uk> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <7lb7ma.47m.ln@127.0.0.1> <3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1032895944 10249 10.0.0.1 (24 Sep 2002 19:32:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:32:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from dsl.demon.co.uk ([158.152.92.150]) by news.demon.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17tvPz-0002fA-00 for mail2news@news.demon.co.uk; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:32:23 +0000 X-Path: dsl.co.uk!bhk X-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk X-Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.31 X-Lines: 23 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!bhk Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117694 In article kelli217@crosswinds.not "Kelli Halliburton" writes: > "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote in message > news:3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com... > > > (state ownership of a copyright == public domain) > > > > evaluates to false. Maybe not... anyone??? > > Actually, the concept of copyright does not apply to the government, as the > government represents the public (in theory, anyway). So, yes, state > ownership of a copyright does indeed equate to public domain. That might apply (or you might /think/ that it applies) in your "state"; over here in Rightpondia, all sorts of documents have "Crown Copyright Reserved" written upon them... -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr- easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com> <1032849039snz@dsl.co.uk> Organization: UC Santa Cruz CIS/CE From: eugene@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) NNTP-Posting-Host: sundance.cse.ucsc.edu Message-ID: <3d922062$1@news.ucsc.edu> Date: 25 Sep 2002 13:45:22 -0800 X-Trace: 25 Sep 2002 13:45:22 -0800, sundance.cse.ucsc.edu Lines: 25 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!news.ucsc.edu!eugene Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117790 In article <1032849039snz@dsl.co.uk>, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote: >In article > kelli217@crosswinds.not "Kelli Halliburton" writes: >> "Douglas H. Quebbeman" wrote in message >> news:3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com... >> > (state ownership of a copyright == public domain) >> > >> > evaluates to false. Maybe not... anyone??? >> >> Actually, the concept of copyright does not apply to the government, as the >> government represents the public (in theory, anyway). So, yes, state >> ownership of a copyright does indeed equate to public domain. In the USA: Oh to a point. What you say is mostly generally true. >That might apply (or you might /think/ that it applies) in your "state"; >over here in Rightpondia, all sorts of documents have "Crown Copyright >Reserved" written upon them... Most of the world is going to the Berne Convention. ###### From: bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:28:09 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Dragonhill Systems Ltd Lines: 13 Message-ID: <1033023070snz@dsl.co.uk> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com> <1032849039snz@dsl.co.uk> <3d922062$1@news.ucsc.edu> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1033061289 27600 10.0.0.1 (26 Sep 2002 17:28:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:28:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from dsl.demon.co.uk ([158.152.92.150]) by news.demon.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ucQo-0007As-00 for mail2news@news.demon.co.uk; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:28:08 +0000 X-Path: dsl.co.uk!bhk X-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk X-Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.31 X-Lines: 12 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!news-x2.support.nl!news2.euro.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!bhk Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:117992 In article <3d922062$1@news.ucsc.edu> eugene@cse.ucsc.edu "Eugene Miya" writes: > Most of the world is going to the Berne Convention. To which the UK has been a signatory for many decades; AIUI, the USA is a recent convert to the concept. -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr- easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sat, 28 Sep 02 11:57:37 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 95 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbqDNAsVFjt9g5qAKcD3j8nZxPmRPJmAiosdHeR18TQe2IEZcuFOUQ8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 2002 13:13:32 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!jpix!giga-nspixp2!newsfeed.gol.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!207-172-97-109 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118048 In article , Eric Smith wrote: >seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes: >> To a certain extent, this can be resolved by emulation, but here we run into >> copyright law; even assuming that an emulator for the Super Nintendo can be >> managed, and assuming a technical means to copy the data off of a cartridge, >> it's almost certainly illegal to do so for another 75 years... by which time >> it will probably be technically impossible. >> >> This is depressing. Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" this >> problem? > >Allow copyrights to be renewed *forever*, but at exponentially increasing >annual renewal fees. errmmm...no. Start exponeniating the renewal fee once the work becomes unavailable. But would that work for books? Probably not if a publisher had to keep one copy in their inventory. Actually, this could be solved if publishers ever got off their ass and started in the demand publishing biz. > .. when Then the owners won't be incented to keep the work >in copyright once it stops making them money. > >Year 1 - $20 >Year 2 - $40 >Year 3 - $80 >Year 4 - $160 > >Year 10 - $10240 > >Year 20 - $10,485,760 > >Year 30 - $10,737,418,240 Look. I don't want them to go out of business; I just want the stuff to be availabe for use. > >How long would Bill decide that it was worth retaining the copyright >to Windows 3.1? How long would Disney want to copyright their films? > >Of course, this would entail *mandatory* registration - no protection >for works not registered. That wouldn't be in compliance with the >Berne Convention, alas. > >Another drawback is that the GPL wouldn't work any longer than someone >was willing to pay for the copyright. > >But it *would* fulfill the purpose of copyright, as established by >the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8: > > The Congress shall have Power ... 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 > >(emphasis added) Without the modification I suggested, the formula won't promote progress; it'll destroy it. > >A strong case can be made that the current lengthy copyright term is >more of a hindrance to the progress of Science and useful Arts than a >benefit. The "Opposing Copyright Extension" web site has some relevant >information and links: > > http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/ > >Another thing that should be eliminated is copyrights on unpublished >works. You want copyright protection, you should publish! Otherwise >you should only get trade secret status. No. Go try to publish anything these days. Unless you write fictional crap you don't get a chance. > >And it should be required that the *complete* work that you want copyright >protection for be deposited with the copyright office, made available >for public inspection, and preserved until the copyright expires so that >it is guaranteed to actually enter the public domain (vs. the current >system where all existent copies may be lost before the copyright expires). /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 27 Sep 2002 20:02:59 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 61 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.66.107.17 X-Trace: 27 Sep 2002 20:21:46 -0700, 209.66.107.17 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.spies.com!209.66.107.17 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118085 seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes: > To a certain extent, this can be resolved by emulation, but here we run into > copyright law; even assuming that an emulator for the Super Nintendo can be > managed, and assuming a technical means to copy the data off of a cartridge, > it's almost certainly illegal to do so for another 75 years... by which time > it will probably be technically impossible. > > This is depressing. Has anyone got any suggestions for how to "fix" this > problem? Allow copyrights to be renewed *forever*, but at exponentially increasing annual renewal fees. Then the owners won't be incented to keep the work in copyright once it stops making them money. Year 1 - $20 Year 2 - $40 Year 3 - $80 Year 4 - $160 Year 10 - $10240 Year 20 - $10,485,760 Year 30 - $10,737,418,240 How long would Bill decide that it was worth retaining the copyright to Windows 3.1? How long would Disney want to copyright their films? Of course, this would entail *mandatory* registration - no protection for works not registered. That wouldn't be in compliance with the Berne Convention, alas. Another drawback is that the GPL wouldn't work any longer than someone was willing to pay for the copyright. But it *would* fulfill the purpose of copyright, as established by the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have Power ... 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 (emphasis added) A strong case can be made that the current lengthy copyright term is more of a hindrance to the progress of Science and useful Arts than a benefit. The "Opposing Copyright Extension" web site has some relevant information and links: http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/ Another thing that should be eliminated is copyrights on unpublished works. You want copyright protection, you should publish! Otherwise you should only get trade secret status. And it should be required that the *complete* work that you want copyright protection for be deposited with the copyright office, made available for public inspection, and preserved until the copyright expires so that it is guaranteed to actually enter the public domain (vs. the current system where all existent copies may be lost before the copyright expires). ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:54:52 -0400 Lines: 19 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1033228493 204.250.0.238 (28 Sep 2002 11:54:53 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!eusc.inter.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118022 "Eric Smith" wrote in message=20 > > Another thing that should be eliminated is copyrights on unpublished > works. You want copyright protection, you should publish! Otherwise > you should only get trade secret status. Back in '88, when I sent for copies of all the relevant documents from the US Gov (Library of Congress?), I thought I recalled that the term "publish" wasn't limited to what we typically associate with the term, i.e. in a book or mag- azine, but instead, meant "fixed in form"; and in the case=20 of software (and maybe other things too), having been written=20 to media constituted publishing.=20 So a tape of unreleased software that makes it into your hands does indeed constitute a "published work". -dq ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: 28 Sep 2002 20:31:38 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 54 Message-ID: <6ufzvuneyd.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1033237898 1363 10.0.3.2 (28 Sep 2002 18:31:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 2002 18:31:38 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118122 Eric Smith writes: > Allow copyrights to be renewed *forever*, but at exponentially increasing > annual renewal fees. Interesting idea. > Of course, this would entail *mandatory* registration - no protection > for works not registered. And that would be good. Anyone who is not explicitely wanting copyright (and be prepared to do something for it), should not hinder the public. The trouble that vanished authors of works make. Such as software released without copyright statement (author had no interest in copyright, so he ignored entire issue). > That wouldn't be in compliance with the > Berne Convention, alas. The Berne COnvention is crap. Get rid of it. > Another drawback is that the GPL wouldn't work any longer than someone > was willing to pay for the copyright. That is the type of "drawback" many people would not mind at all. > Another thing that should be eliminated is copyrights on unpublished > works. You want copyright protection, you should publish! Otherwise > you should only get trade secret status. Yes. Copyright exist to get more works into the public. Unpublished stuff will never be. > And it should be required that the *complete* work that you want copyright > protection for be deposited with the copyright office, made available > for public inspection, and preserved until the copyright expires so that > it is guaranteed to actually enter the public domain (vs. the current > system where all existent copies may be lost before the copyright expires). Also a good idea. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Programmer, Archer, Roleplayer - hardware runs the world, software controls the hardware code generates the software, have you coded today? ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 28 Sep 2002 13:15:52 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 27 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.66.107.17 X-Trace: 28 Sep 2002 13:34:48 -0700, 209.66.107.17 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.spies.com!209.66.107.17 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118157 I wrote: > Allow copyrights to be renewed *forever*, but at exponentially increasing > annual renewal fees. jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: > errmmm...no. Start exponeniating the renewal fee once the > work becomes unavailable. Doesn't solve the problem of things staying in copyright for up to 200 years (author's life + 95). > Without the modification I suggested, the formula won't promote > progress; it'll destroy it. How's that? > No. Go try to publish anything these days. Unless you write > fictional crap you don't get a chance. Publishing is easy. You can do it yourself. Getting anyone to buy something is another matter, but that wasn't part of my criteria. I merely meant that the work has to be available for sale, and that it has to be on deposit with the Librarian of Congress and available for inspection (but not copying) there. Using copyright to protect unpublished works *only* benefits the author; it has *no* benefit to the public. ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 28 Sep 2002 13:17:25 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.66.107.17 X-Trace: 28 Sep 2002 13:36:21 -0700, 209.66.107.17 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!news.spies.com!209.66.107.17 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118155 "Douglas H. Quebbeman" writes: > Back in '88, when I sent for copies of all the relevant > documents from the US Gov (Library of Congress?), I thought > I recalled that the term "publish" wasn't limited to what > we typically associate with the term, i.e. in a book or mag- > azine, but instead, meant "fixed in form"; and in the case > of software (and maybe other things too), having been written > to media constituted publishing. Not in terms of copyright law. The source code to most software products is copyrighted as an unpublished work, even if it is not "fixed in form". Unless being stored on a hard drive along with lots of other stuff satisfies "fixed in form". ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 28 Sep 2002 13:18:14 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 7 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.66.107.17 X-Trace: 28 Sep 2002 13:37:10 -0700, 209.66.107.17 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.spies.com!209.66.107.17 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118156 "Douglas H. Quebbeman" writes: > So a tape of unreleased software that makes it into your hands > does indeed constitute a "published work". Again, not under copyright law. There are specific provisions for unpublished works. The fact that a copy is misappropriated without permission of the owner does not make it "published". ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:29:24 -0400 Lines: 27 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d961f35$1_1@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1033248565 204.250.0.238 (28 Sep 2002 17:29:25 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118130 "Roland Hutchinson" wrote in message = news:an51sb$b4mo2$1@ID-99522.news.dfncis.de... > Douglas H. Quebbeman wrote: >=20 > > "Eric Smith" wrote in message > >> > >> Another thing that should be eliminated is copyrights on = unpublished > >> works. You want copyright protection, you should publish! = Otherwise > >> you should only get trade secret status. > >=20 > > Back in '88, when I sent for copies of all the relevant > > documents from the US Gov (Library of Congress?), I thought > > I recalled that the term "publish" wasn't limited to what > > we typically associate with the term, i.e. in a book or mag- > > azine, but instead, meant "fixed in form"; and in the case > > of software (and maybe other things too), having been written > > to media constituted publishing. > >=20 > > So a tape of unreleased software that makes it into your hands > > does indeed constitute a "published work". >=20 > It think you need to read those forms again. will do! ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:55:24 -0400 Lines: 43 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d96254d$1_2@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1033250125 204.250.0.238 (28 Sep 2002 17:55:25 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!ngpeer.news.aol.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!ash.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118131 "Roland Hutchinson" wrote in message = news:an51sb$b4mo2$1@ID->=20 >=20 > > So a tape of unreleased software that makes it into your hands > > does indeed constitute a "published work". >=20 > It think you need to read those forms again. >=20 > While copyright protections (and registration) does require that the=20 > work be fixed in a tangible form, that's not equivalent to publishing. = Ok, from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#pub : The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows: "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work = to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, = lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to = a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public = performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public = performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute = publication. and "A further discussion of the definition of "publication" can be found = in the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act. The legislative = reports define "to the public" as distribution to persons under no = explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the = contents. " So, the fine line here seems to have to do with whether the guy who = handed you the tape was breaking some agreement he'd rpeviously signed with his employer. =20 > The copyright statute does in fact distinguish between published and=20 > unpublished works. =20 No disputing that... -dq ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:58:05 -0400 Lines: 27 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d9625ef$1_2@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1033250287 204.250.0.238 (28 Sep 2002 17:58:07 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!209.98.3.206!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118133 "Eric Smith" wrote in message = news:qhbs6hx416.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Douglas H. Quebbeman" writes: > > Back in '88, when I sent for copies of all the relevant > > documents from the US Gov (Library of Congress?), I thought > > I recalled that the term "publish" wasn't limited to what > > we typically associate with the term, i.e. in a book or mag- > > azine, but instead, meant "fixed in form"; and in the case=20 > > of software (and maybe other things too), having been written=20 > > to media constituted publishing.=20 >=20 > Not in terms of copyright law. The source code to most software > products is copyrighted as an unpublished work, even if it is not > "fixed in form". Unless being stored on a hard drive along with > lots of other stuff satisfies "fixed in form". It was indeed my interpretation that being stored on a hard drive constitutes being fixed in form. CD-ROM is explicitly referred to, and I think there's a pretty thin line between a CD-ROM and a hard drive. If being removeable from the=20 mechanism is needed as part of the defintion, then if it's on a disk pack, it would satisfy the same requirements as being on a CD-ROM, unless there is magic in the letters that make up the string 'CD-ROM'... -dq ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:02:24 -0400 Lines: 20 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d9626f1$1_3@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1033250545 204.250.0.238 (28 Sep 2002 18:02:25 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118132 "Eric Smith" wrote in message = news:qh7kh5x3zt.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Douglas H. Quebbeman" writes: > > So a tape of unreleased software that makes it into your hands > > does indeed constitute a "published work". >=20 > Again, not under copyright law. There are specific provisions for > unpublished works. The fact that a copy is misappropriated without > permission of the owner does not make it "published". See my reply to Roland. And it need not have been "misappropriated" to fall into one's hands. It would be misappropriation if the guy that handed it to you was under NDA or somesuch; or if you walked through some facility and grabbed a tape and stuck it under your shirt.=20 Pretty fine lines here, no wonder there are so many lawyers! -dq ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> <3d9626f1$1_3@news.iglou.com> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 28 Sep 2002 19:55:39 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.66.107.17 X-Trace: 28 Sep 2002 20:14:38 -0700, 209.66.107.17 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!news.spies.com!209.66.107.17 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118203 "Douglas H. Quebbeman" writes: > See my reply to Roland. And it need not have been "misappropriated" > to fall into one's hands. It would be misappropriation if the guy > that handed it to you was under NDA or somesuch; or if you walked > through some facility and grabbed a tape and stuck it under your > shirt. Even so, it is my understanding that any distribution that is not authorized by the owner of the copyright does not constitute publication, as regards things that are "copyrighted as an unpublished work". On the other hand, I Am Not A Lawyer. ###### From: stanb@dial.pipex.com (Stan Barr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> Organization: Metropolis Grafix Reply-To: stanb@dial.pipex.com Message-ID: X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.2 UNIX) Date: 29 Sep 2002 10:09:13 GMT Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62-190-202-205.pdu.pipex.net X-Trace: 1033294153 news.dial.pipex.com 1290 62.190.202.205 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!amsnews01.chello.com!cleanfeed.casema.net!leda.casema.net!bnewspeer01.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewspeer00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsifeed00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118175 On 28 Sep 2002 13:18:14 -0700, Eric Smith wrote: >"Douglas H. Quebbeman" writes: >> So a tape of unreleased software that makes it into your hands >> does indeed constitute a "published work". > >Again, not under copyright law. There are specific provisions for >unpublished works. The fact that a copy is misappropriated without >permission of the owner does not make it "published". As a one-time photographer, I've followed this discussion with interest. It highlights an important difference between US and European law. In Europe a work (literary, artistic or whatever) is copyright by the mere act of creation. There is no distinction between published and non- published work, if I take a photo the copyright is mine as soon as I press the shutter release, and, of course this news item is my copyright (you have my permission to copy it!)... -- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb@dial.pipex.com The future was never like this! ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> <3d9626f1$1_3@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:39:48 -0400 Lines: 20 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d9710b5$1_1@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1033310389 204.250.0.238 (29 Sep 2002 10:39:49 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118167 "Eric Smith" wrote in message = news:qhelbdbj2s.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Douglas H. Quebbeman" writes: > > See my reply to Roland. And it need not have been "misappropriated" > > to fall into one's hands. It would be misappropriation if the guy > > that handed it to you was under NDA or somesuch; or if you walked > > through some facility and grabbed a tape and stuck it under your > > shirt.=20 >=20 > Even so, it is my understanding that any distribution that is not > authorized by the owner of the copyright does not constitute > publication, as regards things that are "copyrighted as an unpublished > work". >=20 > On the other hand, I Am Not A Lawyer. And I would be fool to represent myself pro se... ;) ###### Reply-To: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" From: "Douglas H. Quebbeman" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:40:45 -0400 Lines: 30 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Message-ID: <3d9710ee$1_2@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: news.iglou.com 1033310446 204.250.0.238 (29 Sep 2002 10:40:46 -0400) X-Authenticated-User: dougq X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.250.0.238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uunet!sea.uu.net!ash.uu.net!news.iglou.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118169 "Stan Barr" wrote in message = news:slrnapdfi9.dvm.stanb@citadel.metropolis.local... > On 28 Sep 2002 13:18:14 -0700, Eric Smith=20 > wrote: > >"Douglas H. Quebbeman" writes: > >> So a tape of unreleased software that makes it into your hands > >> does indeed constitute a "published work". > > > >Again, not under copyright law. There are specific provisions for > >unpublished works. The fact that a copy is misappropriated without > >permission of the owner does not make it "published". >=20 > As a one-time photographer, I've followed this discussion with = interest. > It highlights an important difference between US and European law. > In Europe a work (literary, artistic or whatever) is copyright by the > mere act of creation. There is no distinction between published and = non- > published work, if I take a photo the copyright is mine as soon as I = press > the shutter release, and, of course this news item is my copyright = (you > have my permission to copy it!)... This is the case now also in the U.S. for works created since 1986. Copyright is now an attribute of the work's instantiation. -dq ###### From: bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:45:10 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Dragonhill Systems Ltd Lines: 14 Message-ID: <1033330175snz@dsl.co.uk> References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> <3d9625ef$1_2@news.iglou.com> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1033368310 24859 10.0.0.1 (30 Sep 2002 06:45:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:45:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from dsl.demon.co.uk ([158.152.92.150]) by news.demon.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vuIn-0006So-00 for mail2news@news.demon.co.uk; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:45:09 +0000 X-Path: dsl.co.uk!bhk X-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk X-Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.31 X-Lines: 13 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!teaser.fr!fr.colt.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!bhk Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118322 In article <3d9625ef$1_2@news.iglou.com> dougq@ixnayamspay.com writes: > being on a CD-ROM, unless there is magic in the letters > that make up the string 'CD-ROM'... Well, there is a little: the name "compact disc" (yes, with a 'c'. not a 'k') is a registered trademark of Philips (and Sony???) -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr- easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: 30 Sep 2002 07:52:16 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 6 Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> <3d9625ef$1_2@news.iglou.com> <1033330175snz@dsl.co.uk> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet10 X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1033372336 24693 134.117.136.30 (30 Sep 2002 07:52:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Sep 2002 07:52:16 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@freenet10.carleton.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!204.71.34.15!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118292 Brian {Hamilton Kelly} (bhk@dsl.co.uk) writes: > > Well, there is a little: the name "compact disc" (yes, with a 'c'. not a > 'k') is a registered trademark of Philips (and Sony???) Damn. All these years I've been spelling it 'compakt disc'. ###### From: Charles Shannon Hendrix Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 01:28:22 -0400 Organization: Too Much Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d89f3b1_3@news.iglou.com> <1032849039snz@dsl.co.uk> <3d922062$1@news.ucsc.edu> <1033023070snz@dsl.co.uk> Reply-To: shannon@nospam.widomaker.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 19 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!escape!nobody Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118643 In article <1033023070snz@dsl.co.uk>, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote: > In article <3d922062$1@news.ucsc.edu> eugene@cse.ucsc.edu "Eugene Miya" writes: > >> Most of the world is going to the Berne Convention. > > To which the UK has been a signatory for many decades; AIUI, the USA is a > recent convert to the concept. ...and of course every employment contract out there makes you sign away the Berne Convention if you want a job. I once stuck the company ownership provision and replaced it with a quick reference to "shop rights". The HR-droid just looked puzzled for a moment, and handed me a another, clean copy to sign. Since I re-use code all the time (life is just too short) I suppose I'll have to claim I was under duress in some future lawsuit. ###### From: Charles Shannon Hendrix Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Copyright, archiving, and console games Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 01:31:11 -0400 Organization: Too Much Message-ID: References: <3d85139c$0$79553$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com> Reply-To: shannon@nospam.widomaker.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 8 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!escape!nobody Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:118644 In article <3d95d0cd_1@news.iglou.com>, Douglas H. Quebbeman wrote: > So a tape of unreleased software that makes it into your hands > does indeed constitute a "published work". Most software companies don't like to think of it that way of course...