12 Dec
2005
12 Dec
'05
11:39 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Well, there is a difference. MS-DOS/PC-DOS can still
be run on modern
machines--there's no argument that "the hardware to run it doesn't exist
any more". And both firms that can claim copyright (good for 95 years) are
still around. I'd hate to get a letter from a Microsoft suit saying "cease
and desist--and pay us $250,000".
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I can't legally make copies and
distribute an out-of-print literary work without permission, why is there a
difference with software? Has anyone asked Microsoft or IBM if it would be
okay? Or do we already know that the answer is going to be "no", so we
might as well not ask and draw attention to things?
I am not a lawyer, but my father-in-law is, and he summed up Fair Use to me as
the following: "If you are not slandering a company or causing them financial
harm, you generally don't need to worry."
Most companies send cease-and-desist letters first because it costs a LOT less
money and time to pay a lawyer to mail a C&D letter than it is to go right to
trial. If you get one, you have 24 hours to comply, so just comply.
Most of the legal battles with software isn't copyright, it's intellectual
propery rights -- two different things.
In the case we're talking about, Mark needs DOS 3.3, which he used to own, so
that he can get his computer up and running in the proper historical context.
This passes not one but TWO clauses of Fair Use: Backup and
Educational/Historical research. Believe me, no lawyer would even begin to
waste his time on it.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/