HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: About PKZIP 2.04c export conditions and Garbo FTP archives
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:35:03 GMT

In article <ts9301121817.6821@chyde.uwasa.fi> ts@chyde.uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>The United States government has given permission for PKWARE, Inc.
>to export our Data Encryption technology except to the following
>countries:
>
>Cuba,Iran,Iraq,North Korea, the police or military of South Africa,
>Syria, and Vietnam.


	That's kind of like forbidding the export of The Washington Post
	to the aforementioned countries--any of them who wanted it could get
	it any number of unpreventable ways.



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.legal
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Out of print material and copyright law
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:50:33 GMT


Cameron Smith wrote a long piece commenting on Terry Carroll's expressed
opinion that upon the destruction of the last authorized copy of a
work by its copyright owner, that work should then devolve to the public
domain.

Smith opined that this should not be so, placing the owner's wishes about
distribution of the piece above any other purpose.

However, American copyright law does not have at its core the idea that
copyright exists to protect an author's interests in the sanctity of his
intellectual production.  Copyright's purpose is to encourage the improvement
of society through the dissemination of knowledge.  It seeks to incent the
creation of such works by granting a limited monopoly on the work to the
author.

While some American copyright jurisprudence has strayed from this conception
(and even a few statutes, see, e.g., the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990,
 which gives certain artists some control over the disposition of copies of
 works they've actually sold), it is the dominant train of thought whenever
copyright foundations are discussed by U.S. courts.

In the case of a copyright owner destroying the last authorized copy, a
court would likely find, as Mr. Carroll said, that the owner still would
be able to enjoin the production and distribution of unauthorized copies.
It would do so not for reasons of "moral property rights" as Smith implied,
but because the court believed that such a power flows naturally from the
statutory language reasonably enacted pursuant to the Constitutional purpose
and power granted to Congress therein.

(By the way, even though in Smith's example of the song manuscript being
 burned, the copyright would still belong to the author, Smith's reasoning
 that is so because the work was "capable of being fixed" doesn't wash.
 However, it is superfluous.  The work was fixed at one point in time,
 and obtained a valid copyright at the instant it was fixed, assuming
 it was copyrightable subject matter.)


-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
Nothing I say is legal advice.  It can't be.  I don't know anything.

Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2439 misc.legal:22251
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Out of print material and copyright law
Date: 11 Jan 93 06:43:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan11.064332.16848
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber) writes:

>In the case of a copyright owner destroying the last authorized copy, a
>court would likely find, as Mr. Carroll said, that the owner still would
>be able to enjoin the production and distribution of unauthorized copies.
>It would do so not for reasons of "moral property rights" as Smith implied,
>but because the court believed that such a power flows naturally from the
>statutory language reasonably enacted pursuant to the Constitutional purpose
>and power granted to Congress therein.

>(By the way, even though in Smith's example of the song manuscript being
> burned, the copyright would still belong to the author, Smith's reasoning
> that is so because the work was "capable of being fixed" doesn't wash.
> However, it is superfluous.  The work was fixed at one point in time,
> and obtained a valid copyright at the instant it was fixed, assuming
> it was copyrightable subject matter.)

Well, there's an angle here that's been overlooked. If the work was
copyrighted under the *old* rules, it is *impossible* for the author
to destroy *all* the authorized copies, because there's no way the
Copyright Office will relinquish the copy he sent them!

Personally, while I understand the arguments regarding an author's
rights, I *do* think that given the intent of copyright law being
to make sure stuff gets distributed, then the author should *not*
be allowed to destroy all copies. 

Getting back to the original question, I wish there was a way to *require*
that software be kept in print as long as the platform exists. Ever try
getting a copy of the OS for a pre-1980 micro computer? 

What I'd like to see is a way to let the copyright owner give a "limited"
release. So that users could copy the docs and tapes/disk and have 
somewhere to mail in a fee in exchange for a "license certificate"
or some such, that they could keep with the copy to prove it was legal.
That way the users could get software and the copyright holder 
would still get royalties.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: styri@hal.nta.no (YuNoHoo)
Subject: Re: PHONE TO ADDRESS
Reply-To: styri@nta.no
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:19:42 GMT

In article <159.720.uupcb@ehbbs.gwinnett.com>, dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer)  writes:
|>  Okay. I am trying to find the address for an unlisted phone number.
|> I would also like to find out about the background of the person that
|> lives there.

Guess I know your problem. BBS using callback, using user phone number to
check that the user identified herself with correct info. Nice, but do
you tell your users you're doing this. And, do you know whether it's legal
to pry information out of am unlisted number. (At least it's not ethical,
the number may be unlisted for privacy reasons...)

|>               I have tried to get the address from Southern Bell,

And they would have a problem if they revealed the info. Anyway, your
friendly user may not even be at the end of that line - ain't automatic
forwarding of incoming calls a nice thing.

|> [...]   Someone told me that a good way to find the name and address
|> for a phone number would be to make a Calling Card call to the number.
|> When the Calling Card bill comes in, call the phone company and ask
|> for the name and address of the number. Do you know if this works,
|> even if the number is unlisted?

Why should they tell you? It's still an unlisted number. Some network
operators wouldn't even list the complete number, just the area code
or somesuch with an indication that this was a special number. Quite
a few persons like this idea, eg. divorce lawyers.

I'm not saying that you cannot get the information. But think twice
before you continue.

---
Haakon Styri
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: out of print material
Date: 10 Jan 93 14:06:58 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Travis Lauricella, in a message to All on 01-09-93 at 7:21pm, said:

TL>|How does US copyright law pertain to out of print material (whether it 
   |books, recordings, software, etc.)  My first instinct would be to apply
   |the standard copyright law to it (the life of the author + 50 years, is
   |it?), but under the Fair Use qualifications, a copy made for personal u
   |of an out of print material wouldn't affect the potential market for th
   |material at all, since being out of print, it has no market.
   |_______________________________________________________________________

          A copyright applies equally to a work that has never been
          published as it does to a work that has been published but is
          no longer in print (in disk?).  The copyright extends for its
          full statutory term notwithstanding the author's or publish-
          er's cessation of distribution.  The fact that the work no
          longer has any material commercial value would certainly be
          an issue in determining whether your use was "fair," as it
          would in determining the author's damages for your infringe-
          ment.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  Old bankers never die; they just lose interest.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2434 misc.legal:22205
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Out of print material and copyright law
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:30:11 GMT

merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

[...]
>Some of the lost films are a result of a studio buying the rights to
>remake a film, including as part of the contract *destroying all
>prints of the earlier film*.  Presumably, this prevents the earlier
>film from taking business away from the remake.  Anyway, someone
>asked what would be the legal status if a print of such a film was
>found, and the answer was the studio would *still* have the right to
>have the film destroyed.
[...]

It would have the right to destroy copies that it or the original
studio owned. It would not, however, have the right to destroy copies
that legally owned to third parties. (With movies maybe there are no
such third parties, but with software there is.)

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.legal
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Out of print material and copyright law
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:46:28 GMT

cameron@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Cameron Smith) writes:
>In article <f9qt023R30Lj01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
>tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>[... Much good stuff deleted ...]
>>[...] (Hell, I think that when a copyright owner destroys the last 
>>remaining authorized copy of a work, there's a good argument that he's 
>>renounced the copyright;  the courts have rejected that view, though).
>>[...]
>>Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152

>Now, I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV...), but it seems to
>me that the court is 100% right in holding that the owner of a
>copyright has not relinquished the right simply by destroying all
>authorized copies of the work...

Here is real-world example: at a past movie-buffs convention, there
was a panel about 'lost films' being searched for by various groups
(National Film Institute, I think, for one).  Some of the lost films
are a result of a studio buying the rights to remake a film, including
as part of the contract *destroying all prints of the earlier film*.
Presumably, this prevents the earlier film from taking business away
from the remake.  Anyway, someone asked what would be the legal status
if a print of such a film was found, and the answer was the studio
would *still* have the right to have the film destroyed.  This
revelation didn't go over too well with the audience...

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: joeh@ami.sps.mot.com (The James Brown Of Computer Science)
Subject: patent examination advice
Organization: none
Distribution: misc
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:22:53


I've just signed up for the April Patent Examination. I'd like to hear
from other people who have taken the exam. I'm especially interested
in hearing about the materials that you used to prepare. Thanks.
From: medic@hardy.u.washington.edu (Travis Lauricella)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Out of print material and copyright law
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:10:47 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

How does US copyright law pertain to out of print material (whether it be
books, recordings, software, etc.)  My first instinct would be to apply
the standard copyright law to it (the life of the author + 50 years, isn't
it?), but under the Fair Use qualifications, a copy made for personal use
of an out of print material wouldn't affect the potential market for the
material at all, since being out of print, it has no market.

In a nutshell, is it illegal to copy software which is out of print?
If the answer is "not entirely," what would be the difference between
copying, say, the old Apple //e's Castle Wolfenstein versus copying
MS Windows 3.0 (since neither are still in print, although Windows 3.0 has
much more current use).

Thanks!

-- 
J. Travis Lauricella     | In the 1500's, we called it witchcraft.
<medic@u.washington.edu> | In the 1900's, we called it Murphy's Law.
                         | In the 2300's, we call them chronotron fields.
"Be good, and you will be lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: styri@hal.nta.no (Haakon Styri)
Subject: Re: ADDRESS
Reply-To: styri@nta.no
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 18:30:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.075556.9043@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mcronin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael T Cronin) writes:
|> It is not a big deal to get addresses off of phone numbers.  Look at some of 
|> the big mail-market companies.  I have moved three time in three years and 
|> Columbia House/CBS record club still finds me.

But, do you have an unlisted phone number? That's the important thing
here. Being able to have a phone and make calls w/o receiving calls
from all kinds of people. Some 'phone companies' even charge extra for
that sort of service.

The matter may not be related to privacy legislation, but the 'phone
company' have sold a service.

Another thing is getting your new address when you move. I guess there
are more sources of that information.

---
Haakon Styri
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2449 misc.legal:22355
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Out of print material and copyright law
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:43:04 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1993Jan11.065525.17032@qiclab.scn.rain.com> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>The "code" in question is almost certainly 6502 *assembler*. As such, given
>that there *aren't* any 6502 based machines on the market, all that code
>be moved would be *algorithms*, which are not copyrightable!

Dude, you are just way off.

17 U.S.C. Sec. 101 defines a "computer program" as "a set of statements or
instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to
bring about a certain result."

Even if your code/algorithm distinction had any validity in the copyright
context, there is nothing in the Copyright Act or its amendments to support
your notion that a program must be executable on a currently-marketed
computer.  Certainly there are hundreds of thousands of Apple IIs out there
still in use, which still represent a market, albeit not a growing one.

Second, your algorithm/code distinction does not work, especially as
related to the "plot line" analogy.  The 6502 implementation (available
in "machine language" not "assembler," by the way) is an "expression" of
an idea and not the idea, nor even the plot line, itself.  The algorithm/code
distinction you try to make may have some punch in patent law, but not
copyrightable.  Anyway, "expressions" of algorithms are certainly
copyrightable, check out Knuth's books and see what happens if you try to
market your own photocopies of them.

Have fun.
-Steve B.

-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
Nothing I say is legal advice.  It can't be.  I don't know anything.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: pkz204c.exe is out, finally ...
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:56:57 GMT

ralphs@halcyon.com (Ralph Sims) writes:

>ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:

>>exporting it.  With the global electronic village we live in, there
>>are just two options to stop us non-americans from importing such
>>material.  The first is not making it availabe IN THE STATES!!!! The

>Might we discuss a third possiblity?  It could be argued that an
>ftp site is nothing more than a type of 'software store.'  If,
>in the United States, someone from Bulgaria walked in to a
>'regular' software store and popped down his AMEX Gold Card,
>that person could walk out with dBASE IV, LOTUS123, etc., all
>of which have export restrictions.  I doubt seriously that the
>store could be prosecuted when U.S. Customs officials discovered
>the wares in airline baggage destined for Bulgaria.  Who is going
>to check the identity of everyone buying software?  There's no
>requirement that this even be done.  So in our electronic
>software store (the ftp archive), we have umtpy-dozen files,
>some of which may have DES restrictions.  These files are
>available, as are the ones in our 'street store' to anyone
>who can get access to them.  I don't feel, and I think this 
>could be argued in one of our Courts, that we (in the U.S.)
>are NOT exporting the file.  We are not physically, ourselves,
>moving it from one location to another.

Well, technically I think you would find that you are exporting
the software. But - the reality is that it may be hard to 
convince a judge and/or a jury that you are moving anything, 
expecially since the file is still there after you have sent it.
I think I would try for a non-jury trial, since I think there 
is a better chance that a judge would be computer illiterate,
than all the members of a jury.

I was recently involved in a case where a file from a hard drive
was copied to a floppy, then deleted from the hard drive. The 
other side asked for sanctions for destroying data, and last
I heard, the judge believed them.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: About PKZIP 2.04c export conditions and Garbo FTP archives
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:58:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.203503.8223@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <ts9301121817.6821@chyde.uwasa.fi> ts@chyde.uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>>The United States government has given permission for PKWARE, Inc.
>>to export our Data Encryption technology except to the following
>>countries:
>>
>>Cuba,Iran,Iraq,North Korea, the police or military of South Africa,
>>Syria, and Vietnam.
>
>
>	That's kind of like forbidding the export of The Washington Post
>	to the aforementioned countries--any of them who wanted it could get
>	it any number of unpreventable ways.

So?  What makes you think the reason for export control is to prevent
the countries getting the stuff?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.legal
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Out of print material and copyright law
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:34:06 GMT

An aside: If you have access to gopher, you can access the text of the
U.S. Copyright Act.

gopher fatty.law.cornell.edu
   -->    9.  Legal Information Institute/
        -->    1.  Copyright Act/


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: jimlynch@netcom.com (Jim Lynch)
Subject: Re: ADDRESS
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:28:12 GMT

In article <158.720.uupcb@ehbbs.gwinnett.com> dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer)  writes:
> Question: Does anyone know a good way to find the address of a person
>when you only have their phone number. I have tried 'PhoneFile' on
>CI$ but they do not have the phone number in their database. The
>phone number should be in Carroll County Georgia (prefix 562).

_PLEASE_ do _NOT_ tell this person how to do this except to say "try directory
assistance".

I for one would become nervous if everyone on the net could get my address from
my phone number.

Thank you in advance for protecting our privacy.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: ralphs@halcyon.com (Ralph Sims)
Subject: Re: pkz204c.exe is out, finally ...
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:07:52 GMT

ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:

>exporting it.  With the global electronic village we live in, there
>are just two options to stop us non-americans from importing such
>material.  The first is not making it availabe IN THE STATES!!!! The

Might we discuss a third possiblity?  It could be argued that an
ftp site is nothing more than a type of 'software store.'  If,
in the United States, someone from Bulgaria walked in to a
'regular' software store and popped down his AMEX Gold Card,
that person could walk out with dBASE IV, LOTUS123, etc., all
of which have export restrictions.  I doubt seriously that the
store could be prosecuted when U.S. Customs officials discovered
the wares in airline baggage destined for Bulgaria.  Who is going
to check the identity of everyone buying software?  There's no
requirement that this even be done.  So in our electronic
software store (the ftp archive), we have umtpy-dozen files,
some of which may have DES restrictions.  These files are
available, as are the ones in our 'street store' to anyone
who can get access to them.  I don't feel, and I think this 
could be argued in one of our Courts, that we (in the U.S.)
are NOT exporting the file.  We are not physically, ourselves,
moving it from one location to another.

However, I'm not a lawyer (only a sometimes-ex accountant),
and should probably leave the legal meanderings for those
who make their living at it.

-- 
     halcyon.com, Public Access Internet, Seattle, WA, +1 206 382 6245
                 "A World of Information at your Fingertips"
                 P.O. Box 555, Grapeview, WA 98546-0555, USA
                    ralphs@halcyon.com,  +1 206 955 1050
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,misc.legal