From: terry@thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: Red Dwarf Series One.
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:54:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.182502@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <Bv3qGy.5L3@Novell.COM>, terry@thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry
>Lambert) writes:
>> Ie: copies made from rental tapes from video stores are legal, and so is a
>> copy of an original disk of a PC game, but copying either and selling the
>> copy is not.
>
>  Gee, could you explain about those notices that appear in the tapes then?

Scare tactic to cut down on copying by people who aren't knowledgable
enough to realize that they are simply scare tactics.  If you have explicit
or tacit permission to copy, it's not a problem (buying one blank tape for
each movie rented from a video store would constitute approval by the video
store for the act of copying the tape).

>The law says you can copy anything YOU OWN for your OWN USE.

This is untrue.  You are not allowed archival priveledges unless they are
explicitly granted to you by license or implicit in sale.  This is something
which is usually granted by software producers.  I defy you to find an
"you may may one copy for archival purposes" notice on a CD or Album.

>That means no
>copying someone elses tapes, and no giving away copies of your own.  Also,
>in most states giving away something is leagally a sale, whether or not you
>got something for it.  (This was originally done to get people for "selling"
>drugs even if they were giving them away for free (like people do this))

Also false.  This has to do with the value of goods recieved.  The reason
it does not apply to video rental is that rental is the goods recieved.
What you have purchased is the right to view the tape.  This right is not
strictly limited to the rental period.  The value of the goods received
is deemed to be $0 for copies of rental tapes.

>  Of course, this never stops anybody :-)  (Also, copyright violations are
>rarely prosecuted.  More often one recieves a cease and disist order in the
>mail).

One more frequently, in the case of a real infringement, receives a bill in
the mail.  Prosecution for copyright infringement isn't all that rare any
more; Novell recently successfully prosecuted some people posting copies of
the file server software to a BBS.

You really should read up on First Use law and treaty law.  The Berne
Convention does not override Federal Statute regarding First Use.

The *only* time First Use does not apply is when civil law comes into play
(in the form of licensing agreements).  Implicit Licensing (or "shrink wrap"
licensing, to use industry parlance) has been overturned in all states
except Missisippi and Missouri.  This is why you tend to see "State of Venue"
notices associated with shrink wrap licenses.  The fallacy here is that you
have not agreed to the license (and therefore a change in venue) unless you
are in one of the enforcement states.

What this basically means is that you purchase ownership rights to a copy
of a copyrighted work (as opposed to publication rights).  You do not get
publication rights any more than you get mineral rights when you buy a piece
of property (unless it is part of the deeded goods).  What you do get is
the right to do anything you want with your purchased copy, including allowing
it to be copied by someone else.  This right does not go with the copy
(unless you have also purchased publication rights), so a copy of a copy is
legal (thus a software or video "pirate" is legally clear from prosecution
if all copies were obtained from originals with the owner's permission,
assuming non-licensed posession.  This does give you a wonderful opportunity
to be dorked by one of your sources by them stating permission was denied).

If you absolutlely insist, I can probably dig up the appellate court rulings
from the First Circuit Court in Denver, which made this binding case law
(rulings from appellate courts are considered binding onm lower courts).
The video pirate in question was a video store owner from Salt Lake City,
Utah (where I am posting this), and it was about 4 years ago.  Preferrably,
you will dig them up yourself, as it would probably take nearly two weeks
for me to do it, and I already know about it and don't need to read them
to be convinced.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
					terry_lambert@novell.com
					terry_lambert@ns.novell.com

---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.