HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Question => Second hand software
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 15:39:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.115018.17701@qiclab.scn.rain.com> Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>>I thought there was a shrink-wrap case in Louisiana a few years
>>ago ...
>
>Yes, but Louisiana is a special case. They have a state law that 
>*explicitly* states that "shrink wrap" licenses are valid. The various 
>software publishers haven'y managed to talk any other states into 
>doing that.

The pragmatic question even for Louisiana then is:  How much, if any,
prosecution is going on with violators of Shrink-Wrap licenses?  I'll
venture a quess that it isn't many, if any.

More and more today you can stop by neighborhood garage sales and find
all kinds of "used" software for sale.  The question as to the legality
of selling that software is never addressed, not by the buyer, not by
the seller nor (most importantly) by the software producer and/or the
police.  That doesn't make it legal, but I mention it as it is now
and will continue to happen more frequently in the future.  

Just an observation.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Computer Graphics in the Courtroom
From: killion@eis.calstate.edu (Dave Killion;Pac Bell)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:39:19 GMT
Distribution: USA
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

I would assume most modern attorneys and law students who have acess to
the Internet would read this particular newsgroup.  With this audience in
mind, I post the following question:

What is your position regarding using computer generated graphics and
video in the courtroom as evidence (i.e. "Forensic Animation")?

An example that springs to mind is the Mitchel Brtothers trial we had
recently here in San Francisco.  Other examples would be recreating auto
accidents with the help of an accident reconstructionist, demonstrating
product failure for liability cases, or recreating an assault for a
criminal or civil case.

Would you use it?  How often?  

I pose the question because I need feedback regarding whether or not to
start a company to provide such a service.  Consider this a market
research survey.  Any information you can provide as a professional (or
would-be professional) will help tremendously.

Please Email me with any kind of response you may have to:

Dave Killion
Killion@eis.calstate.edu

Thank you!

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: CD-ROM Copyright Questions
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 21:38:36 GMT
Distribution: misc.legal.questions
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <BzxEAB.7Ap@csn.org> brucem@teal.csn.org (Bruce Makinen) writes:

>Greetings all -- hope you had a happy holiday.  Now, on to
>my question.

>We would like to take information available from a CD, and re-index
>it for use on a LAN Database system.  We're thinking about using
>reference books and that kind of thing.  My question is, is this in
>violation of the copyright of the disk?  If so, is it possible to buy
>a site license for the disk so it can be used in this type of setup?
>I suspect that it would be a copyright violation, I'm just make sure.

>Any help or other suggestions would be appreciated.  I don't want to
>start a debate about copyright -- we really are going to try to do 
>this nice and legal.  E-mail or post, either way I'll find it.  Thanks.

I don't mean to be critical of MR. Makinen here.  I apologize ahead 
of time.

We have had numerous posts in this and other usenet groups where someone
says something of the following form:

"I have here X (where X is a copyrighted work) which I bought fair 
and square.  I would like to do Y (where Y is different from going
back to the store and buying another copy).  Will it be a copyright
violation?"

Diligent readers will note that the answer is always the same:  read
the license.  The publishers of these things always include a 
license document setting forth what they say you can do.  It is
also sensible, where the document is not clear, to write to the 
publisher to ask for interpretation.

Time to put on the flame suit, I suppose.

Yes, I know, some courts have found some shrink-wrap copyright 
licenses uninforceable (and I point out that others have enforced them.)
Yes, I know there is such a thing as "fair use".  But it is virtually
guaranteed that no question posted here falls within a tehcnological 
area where courts have worked out what is "fair use" and what is not.

But, please, the general answer should be "read the license".

So here the poster should have said something like:

I bought X.  I want to do Y.  The license says I cannot do Z.
Does Y fall within Z?

Why can't our posters post the relevant license agreement language
so we know what is being talked about?

Again, apologies to the person posting here.  It is only that your
comment was the unlucky one to unleash all this.

Carl Oppedahl
n

-- 
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Question => Second hand software
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:15:11 GMT

leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>>I thought there was a shrink-wrap case in Louisiana a few years
>>ago ...

>Yes, but Louisiana is a special case. They have a state law that 
>*explicitly* states that "shrink wrap" licenses are valid. The various 
>software publishers haven'y managed to talk any other states into 
>doing that.

Yes - and I think the case (Vault v. Quaid) is best known for
state law preemption by the copyright law (17 USC Section 301).

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

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: brucem@teal.csn.org (Bruce Makinen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: CD-ROM Copyright Questions
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:10:58 GMT
Distribution: misc.legal.questions
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

Greetings all -- hope you had a happy holiday.  Now, on to
my question.

We would like to take information available from a CD, and re-index
it for use on a LAN Database system.  We're thinking about using
reference books and that kind of thing.  My question is, is this in
violation of the copyright of the disk?  If so, is it possible to buy
a site license for the disk so it can be used in this type of setup?
I suspect that it would be a copyright violation, I'm just make sure.

Any help or other suggestions would be appreciated.  I don't want to
start a debate about copyright -- we really are going to try to do 
this nice and legal.  E-mail or post, either way I'll find it.  Thanks.

brucem@csn.org
Bruce Makinen
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Computer Graphics in the Courtroom
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: USA
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 15:20:34 GMT

killion@eis.calstate.edu (Dave Killion;Pac Bell) writes:

>What is your position regarding using computer generated graphics and
>video in the courtroom as evidence (i.e. "Forensic Animation")?

First, I am not sure this is the right audience. I don't know how
many PI attys there are out there looking at this. However,

I have somewhat a philisophical problem with the use of especially
computer generated animation in the courtroom. The problem is in giving
significant extra weight tone side's view of the facts. My impression
is that such animation is extremely effective in getting one's side
across. However, I think that my luddian attitude here will not prevail.
 
>Would you use it?  How often?  

In the right situation I would. However, I do not practice the type of
law in which it appears to be very useful (or I have limited imagination).

>I pose the question because I need feedback regarding whether or not to
>start a company to provide such a service.  Consider this a market
>research survey.  Any information you can provide as a professional (or
>would-be professional) will help tremendously.

I believe that there is a rapidly growing market for that sort of thing.
I remember articles on the subject in several magazines, including I
think the ATLA magazine. (By the way, that is your primary market 
at this time). However, I think that you have competition out there.
I seem to remember some sort of advertising in either a ATLA or ABA
magazine in the last year about computer animation for the courtroom.

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

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Question => Second hand software
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:52:04 GMT

whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:

>In article <1992Dec25.115018.17701@qiclab.scn.rain.com> Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>The pragmatic question even for Louisiana then is:  How much, if any,
>prosecution is going on with violators of Shrink-Wrap licenses?  I'll
>venture a quess that it isn't many, if any.

One reason the Louisiana law may not be enforced is that at least
parts of it are probably preempted by 17 USC 301.

>More and more today you can stop by neighborhood garage sales and find
>all kinds of "used" software for sale.  The question as to the legality
>of selling that software is never addressed, not by the buyer, not by
>the seller nor (most importantly) by the software producer and/or the
>police.  That doesn't make it legal, but I mention it as it is now
>and will continue to happen more frequently in the future.  

Well, what has changed, thanks to help from the SPA, is that
copyright infringement of software is now potentially a felony.
Obviously, the US Atty is not going after a person buying one or
two packages. (That's not even a felony). They may be however
interested in the business selling its Word Perfect 5.0 when
they upgraded to 5.1. The company is also opening itself up to
a civil suit. Attorneys' fees for willful infringment (almost
presumed if there is proper C/R marking) makes a suit very
inviting for the software vendor. 

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Player rights on MUDs
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:48:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) writes:
>My personal opinion is that since they are availing themselves of a service
>you provide at no cost to them, they should have very little expectation of
>rights on the game.  I've never held disclaimers in very high regard, so I'd
>have to see a real demonstration of need for it before I would set one up.

      One right players may have is ownership of the intellectual
property they produce.  In MUDs which allow building, if a player builds
something, do they own copyright on it?  Probably.

      There was a big flap about this on some system about two years ago,
when the sysop of a MUD took a copy of a large, succesful MUD with
many buildings, including private ones, and duplicated it on another
machine, but with the private objects now owned and controlled by the
sysop.  Private messages in private spaces were exposed to view.
Loud complaints, and some threats of lawsuits.  Arguably, this is
software piracy by the sysop; it's as if someone offering a system where
software development was allowed took copies of software being developed
in private files on the system and started using or selling it.  And
deliberately making public messages intended to be private is probably a
violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  I don't think
this one reached litigation, but in today's climate, it might.

       It seems clear that the sysop of a MUD has the responsibilities
of the sysop of a BBS: to keep inter-user communications which are
supposed to be private actually private, and to respect the intellectual
property rights of users.  These are legal responsibilities, and anyone
planning on violating them probably should get legal advice first.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: Bob Blackmun <rrb@unccsun.uncc.edu>
Subject: Re: Player rights on MUDs
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A768C97519022881@rrb-mac.uncc.edu>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 15:59:49 GMT
Organization: UNC Charlotte
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d14
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:57:15 GMT

In article <TRSNYDER.92Dec29134432@vf0031.mcs.drexel.edu> Bob Snyder,
trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu writes:
>
From: dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: ADDRESS
Date: 1 Jan 93 23:28:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Berkeley Lake, GA - 404-446-9462
Reply-To: dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer) 

 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).
  Any help in this matter is appreciated!
              AdvaThanksnce.
                                               
----
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       Ed Hopper's BBS - ehbbs.gwinnett.com - Atlanta, Georgia         |
|  USR/HST: 404-446-9462                  V.32bis: 404-446-9465         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Question => Second hand software
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 11:50:18 GMT

oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>I thought there was a shrink-wrap case in Louisiana a few years
>ago ...

Yes, but Louisiana is a special case. They have a state law that 
*explicitly* states that "shrink wrap" licenses are valid. The various 
software publishers haven'y managed to talk any other states into 
doing that.


-- 
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: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Legal Word Processing? (Tables of Authorities, WPerf, WfWindows)?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:11:21 GMT

Hank Roberts (hank@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:

: A query from some coworkers (who will be most surprised and impressed
: if this strange thing called "the Net" actually answers their questions).

: They're asking:

: How are lawyers creating Tables of Authorities using WfWindows 2.0B?

: How good is WfW2.0B at importing Word Perfect files?

: And what pitfalls have you fallen into, or stepped carefully around?

: (They have _lots_ of advice on these matters from "consultants"
: which is probably why they're willing to ask me to ask the Net)

Hank, I could be mistaken, but I don't remember seeing you ask this
in word.  (g word; not to be confused with words.)  There is 
active discussion of this type going on right now.  (On The WELL,
I meant to say.)  I don't know anything about WfW, sorry, though
I am a WP expert (DOS).

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com  /or/  |"You sound like a man|
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us    |with a rubber nose." |
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |vox/fax: 1.510.645.1883| -- One-Lung Bill    |
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |350 Perkins St., #108  |     Remmer (deceased)
_l//______________________\\l_|Oakland,_CA__94610-3422|_____________________|_
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: brucem@teal.csn.org (Bruce Makinen)
Subject: CD-ROM Licenses Questions
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: misc.legal.computing
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:06:15 GMT

In response to Mr. Oppedahl's statements:

Your points are well taken and I can appreciate your level of
frustration at what is most likely a FAQ.  So, I apologize for
wasting the initial bandwidth; I didn't state my intentions very well.

I DON'T own a copy of X that I want to do Y with.  We are just in the
preliminary proposal stages of this project and the question of "could 
we do this" came up.  I was foolish enough to say I'd try to find out
what the GENERAL position was.  It appears that a site license or some other
type of agreement will have to be worked out, based on responses I got.

Thanks for the responses.  Now where did I put my asbestos suit...

- Bruce
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Player rights on MUDs
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:44:32 GMT
	<komarimf.725645685@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
Organization: ASCI

In article <komarimf.725645685@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:

   One simple solution would be to post a disclaimer or soemthing in
   the MOTD.  Maybe something to the effect that they have no real
   rights on the mud (other than privacy) and that sites can be banned
   at the discretion of the Wizzes.  My experience with muds kinda
   tells me this is an 'unwritten law' in the mud world, but you may
   want to write it out so that everyone knows and you don't get sued
   or something.

Actually, on a lot of muds, they don't even have the right of privacy.
I help run an LPmud, and was a wizard on a MUSH.  The LP code has a "snoop"
command built into it, which relays everything seen by the player to the
snooper.  MUSH is better in terms of privacy, but it is quite possible for a
wizard to code an object to listen in on a player, and just about anything
can be logged by the admin, from what I understand....

My personal opinion is that since they are availing themselves of a service
you provide at no cost to them, they should have very little expectation of
rights on the game.  I've never held disclaimers in very high regard, so I'd
have to see a real demonstration of need for it before I would set one up.

Bob
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Player rights on MUDs
From: youngdah@nic (Ben Youngdahl)
Date: 29 Dec 1992 04:21:46 GMT
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.gac.edu


Situation:  lets say you are running a mud on a commercial site.
You charge nothing for the service.  Does a player connecting to
the mud have any rights in-so-far-as the mud goes?  If they post
a message on a bulletin board on the mud, can you remove it?
Can you delete their player if they "break a rule" of the mud?
Can you ban their site?

Or do they have actual legal rights that they could take your company
to court over?

Ben Youngdahl
youngdah@nic.gac.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: Player rights on MUDs
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:14:45 GMT

youngdah@nic (Ben Youngdahl) writes:


>Situation:  lets say you are running a mud on a commercial site.
>You charge nothing for the service.  Does a player connecting to
>the mud have any rights in-so-far-as the mud goes?  If they post
>a message on a bulletin board on the mud, can you remove it?
>Can you delete their player if they "break a rule" of the mud?
>Can you ban their site?

Yes.

>Or do they have actual legal rights that they could take your company
>to court over?

One simple solution would be to post a disclaimer or soemthing in the
MOTD.  Maybe something to the effect that they have no real rights on 
the mud (other than privacy) and that sites can be banned at the 
discretion of the Wizzes.  My experience with muds kinda tells me
this is an 'unwritten law' in the mud world, but you may want to 
write it out so that everyone knows and you don't get sued or something.

-Enry




--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
Smile.  It makes people wonder what you're up to.
From: phoffman@orac.holonet.net (Paul E. Hoffman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: CD-ROM Copyright Questions
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:19:16 GMT
Distribution: misc.legal.questions
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem

oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>We have had numerous posts in this and other usenet groups where someone
>says something of the following form:

>"I have here X (where X is a copyrighted work) which I bought fair 
>and square.  I would like to do Y (where Y is different from going
>back to the store and buying another copy).  Will it be a copyright
>violation?"

Carl, I believe that the question was more related to putting the work in
a different order with a different index. Regardless of the license on
the box, the poster may in fact have the right to republish the work
locally (or even commercially) in a different structure, no?

>Time to put on the flame suit, I suppose.

It's always that time around here  :-)

>>Paul Hoffman
-- 
||  Why quote someone else?  ||
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: CD-ROM Copyright Questions
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: misc.legal.questions
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 04:12:30 GMT

>>We would like to take information available from a CD, and re-index
>>it for use on a LAN Database system.  We're thinking about using
>>reference books and that kind of thing.  My question is, is this in
>>violation of the copyright of the disk?  If so, is it possible to buy
>>a site license for the disk so it can be used in this type of setup?
>>I suspect that it would be a copyright violation, I'm just make sure.

>>Any help or other suggestions would be appreciated.  I don't want to
>>start a debate about copyright -- we really are going to try to do 
>>this nice and legal.  E-mail or post, either way I'll find it.  Thanks.

>Diligent readers will note that the answer is always the same:  read
>the license.  The publishers of these things always include a 
>license document setting forth what they say you can do.  It is
>also sensible, where the document is not clear, to write to the 
>publisher to ask for interpretation.

>Time to put on the flame suit, I suppose.

>Yes, I know, some courts have found some shrink-wrap copyright 
>licenses uninforceable (and I point out that others have enforced them.)

Carl - can you get me the cites for the cases where the shrink wrap 
"licenses" were upheld as licenses. My feelings on the subject are
well known here. 

>Yes, I know there is such a thing as "fair use".  But it is virtually
>guaranteed that no question posted here falls within a tehcnological 
>area where courts have worked out what is "fair use" and what is not.

>But, please, the general answer should be "read the license".

Well, I come at it from a little different perspective, but get to
essentially the same place. The main question is whether you are
making a copy of the copyrighted work. Creating a new index to a
copyrighted work is probably not creating a copy, so it might be
ok. But - if you are creating a copy of the work (database), then
you have to read the "license".

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: ibacon@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Ian Bacon)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Australian Computer Law
Date: 30 Dec 1992 08:19:16 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I am interested in finding out something about Australian Computer Law,
with particular reference to BBS's. Can anyone point me towards a
book(s) or other source that can provide me with info?

I am thinking about setting up my own BBS and would like to know the
legal problems before they become a problem.