Re: [dvd-discuss] computers and networks 101

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

I didn't elaborate upon my use of the word "sell" until recently nobody 
even questioned most of what you stated....in the case of microsoft 
selling me software I mean the software is my own personal property that I 
can resell, reuse, use as long as I choose, and the stupid SOBs have no 
right to revoke my ability to use it (e.g., Windows - eXtra Putrid)...

As for 80 computers....if they are in your home that is one thing. IF it 
is a commercial establishment, that's another since that is making 
commercial use of the copies. As prof. litman has pointed out, people make 
a distinction between those two in copyright even if much of the 
intellectual property community does not (and needs to learn to make that 
distinction).

But you raise an interesting point. What protection should binary 
executables have?  I don't think it's much of an issue that they can keep 
cranking out new versions and so what if they do? BUT .....SInce they 
would be works for hire, giving them copyright protection for 120 yrs (?) 
seems quite extreme considering that DOS 2.0 executables don't run under 
windows2000 (I believe). It seems rather silly for society to provide 
protections for that period for what is essentually abandoned 
"intellectual property". It also raises the question why should copyright 
terms be a uniform time for all TYPES of copyright material even for 
software? Legally, a FORTRAN II(minus) spaghetti code of bubble sort is 
copyrighted and is rewriting it into FORTRAN 90 (or is it FORTRAN 95?) 
constitute a "derivative work"? Technically the answer is NO and HELL NO. 
but Legally?

Speaking of eXtra Putrid. I was reading about some of the security 
features in the professional edition a few hours ago..encrypted files on 
the disk.....lovely.....anybody know what current reliability of 
diskdrives are for sector and media failure? I don't think bit flips are a 
common failure mechanism but that's all that would be needed for a block 
cipher or a decent hash function providing media integrity.




Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/24/01 02:27 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] computers and networks 101



On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> But Microsoft has a right to sell software just at much as GPL has to
> give it away.

To rephrase more correctly: Microsoft has a right to sell software as much
as the GPL grants the right to give it away.

I agree that a person or corporation has the right to sell copies of a
work.  But I disagree with the idea that anyone has a right to tell
someone what they can do with that copy after first sale.  If I want to
install it on eighty computers, fine.  If I want to sell it again,
fine.

If the work is copyrighted, I don't have the right to sell further
copies.  That's already established.

But I also disagree that a copyright can cover the binary distributions
being kicked out by commercial software vendors.  Is the copyright on the
actual stream of bits distributed on the CD?  If not, then they're not
really publishing the work.  The stream of bits on the CD doesn't count as
publication because it's trivial for the software company to change a few
elements of the UI, recompile with a slightly modified compiler, and end
up with a completely unique binary stream and claim brand new copyright,
even though the underlying work has not changed significantly.

Copyright should apply only to source code (the PARTICULAR EXPRESSION of
the ideas present in a piece of software) and copyright protection should
only apply to published versions of the copyrighted material.  That is to
say, if you don't publish source, you don't get copyright protection.

That means I can sell multiple copies of that binary distributed software
because there's no copyright law to prevent it.

> It's healthy competition. When you hear executives of Microsoft making
> public pronouncments that GPL is the worst thing for the software
> industry ever created, it's time to check for your wallet....

Well, the GPL _IS_ the worst thing for the software industry's current
business model (keep secrets, charge for using work derivative of the
secrets on a per-seat basis, let government enforce secret without any
public benefit).

Fine.  So be it.
J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org