19 Mar
2007
19 Mar
'07
3:58 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
For sure. But besides that, I see the web aspect purely as the most
convenient
method to allow users to do the searching. There's nothing to stop a search
result pointing to a FTP site, physical mailing address to which to send
your
pre-paid envelope in order to receive a CD of data back etc. :)
In other words, the actual data retrieval side doesn't *have* to be
web-based
at all (although realistically in most cases it probably would be). As you
say, recording the date in the metadata is the way to go anyway!
Billy:
This brings in several points that should be discussed re: what is an
archive.
If I send manuals to be scanned and put on a web site, is that breaking the
law? Here returns all the arguments about copyright law that have ensnarled
this list before. Generally the answer is yes. But as one member
responded, many copyright owners give a "wink and a nod" without officially
blessing the activity.
Of course many other IP owners have gone out of business and there may or
may not be a new rights owner.
Then comes the discussion of the manuals themselves. Many were distributed
in thousands of copies. They fall under fair use laws. But some stuff from
this list is detailed internal documents, such as software source listings,
software maintenance documents, etc. This is a much more iffy arena. There
might still be perceived value to this IP.
In a few cases, and Control Data is one of them, IP (especially software)
was sold and the new owner continues to protect his investment. If we want
to play and share old CDC software, we have to ask for permission. To be on
the good side of the new owner, we play by his rules.
And he makes no effort to preserve the older unsaleable software. So the
dilemma is how to save all this old software for the future? The method a
few of us use is to make copies, put them in private archives and
specifically prevent them from being accessed on the web. There may a very
small private distribution to individuals known to have an interest in the
software and willing to follow the owner's rules.
This solves the preservation problem - multiple copies are saved. And it
prevents the IP owner coming down like a ton of bricks.
So now we have a young Turk who is going to save everything and distribute
to whoever he wants. He ignores the narrow line that is being walked by the
current public archives and even proposes we engage in illegal activities to
help his acquisition yen.
There doesn't seem to be any understanding that not everyone wants wide
distribution of the software archives. Nor does he understand that what he
wants to do could set off the wrath of IP owners against the current public
archives. We survive at the whim of these IP owners. And many of them,
like the RIAA, are in a bad temper.
What a few of us are doing is ensuring multiple copies are archived without
shouting it to the world. It achieves the goals of a lasting archive. And
it keeps the Eye of Sauron away from us.
And if copies are not available to leeches, too bad.
Billy
20 Mar
20 Mar
10:31 a.m.
New subject: Don Maslin/Archiving system software (was: ftp archives disappearing?)
Billy Pettit wrote:
If I send manuals to be scanned and put on a web site,
is that breaking the
law? Here returns all the arguments about copyright law that have ensnarled
this list before. Generally the answer is yes. But as one member
responded, many copyright owners give a "wink and a nod" without officially
blessing the activity.
Copyright law's murky at best and varies wildly from country to country. It's
another reason I'd aim for a distributed archive as even if one particular
corner's hit by copyright problems it *shouldn't* take out the entire archive
(with all the content that *is* OK to distribute).
Now mirroring though, ugh - I'm not sure where the responsibility lies there.
I'm not even sure how to collectively cover our butts with that one. It
wouldn't surprise me if some countries have laws where the "fault" is with
the
person downloading the content for mirroring, even if the person who
actually supplies the content suggests that there isn't a copyright problem.
Maybe a "suck it and see" approach is needed, but we build something into the
archive to easily flag specific files for removal (along with a reason, such
as copyright violation).
In no way am I advocating blatant copyright violation - I'm just being a
realist and thinking that at some point there *will* be problemsbecause
something will sneak through that somebody later objects to. It seems that the
lack of a defined way of dealing with such problems when they happen is what's
caused a lot of trouble with these so-called "file sharing" networks, *not*
that they happened in the first place per se.
And he makes no effort to preserve the older
unsaleable software. So the
dilemma is how to save all this old software for the future? The method a
few of us use is to make copies, put them in private archives and
specifically prevent them from being accessed on the web. There may a very
small private distribution to individuals known to have an interest in the
software and willing to follow the owner's rules.
Hmmm, so do you think that one way of publishing content might be "available
to mirror, but not for public distribution"? That way the data would still get
mirrored, but wouldn't be accessible by the public. I wonder how the lawyers
of the world view such things? (it seems acceptable to *me* - but the data
*is* still being illegally distributed, just on a very small scale)
There doesn't seem to be any understanding that
not everyone wants wide
distribution of the software archives. Nor does he understand that what he
wants to do could set off the wrath of IP owners against the current public
archives. We survive at the whim of these IP owners. And many of them,
like the RIAA, are in a bad temper.
I suppose it does come down to a question of scale in the case of
distribution; how much is too much? I mean all sorts of copyright laws get
broken every day with things like people recording TV shows to VCR, or lending
their friends their music CDs etc. and nobody gets in trouble for that.
What a few of us are doing is ensuring multiple copies
are archived without
shouting it to the world. It achieves the goals of a lasting archive. And
it keeps the Eye of Sauron away from us.
But it's still breaking the law, surely? Just because it's not so visible
doesn't make it legal. So at some point there has to be a line, and that line
is different depending on who objects to it and what country they happen to be
in. So perhaps it does just boil down to being sensible about it: seek
permission where possible, and provide mechanisms to remove data that is
legally objected to.
cheers
Jules
10:43 a.m.
New subject: Don Maslin/Archiving system software (was: ftp archives disappearing?)
I suppose it does come down to a question of scale in
the case of
distribution; how much is too much?
"Enough to annoy someone with deep pockets in a relevant jurisdiction",
seems to me to be the most pragmatic answer.
I mean all sorts of copyright laws get broken every
day with things
like people recording TV shows to VCR, or lending their friends their
music CDs etc. and nobody gets in trouble for that.
Lending someone a music CD actually is not a copyright violation (well,
in most jurisdictions - there may be one somewhere that objects to it),
any more than lending someone a book is. Giving - or even lending -
someone a *(homemade) copy of* a CD, on the other hand, is somewhere
between "unclear" and "blatant violation".
Recording TV shows to VCR to timeshift (ie, to watch at a time other
than when the show airs), I believe there's case law saying that's
acceptable, at least in the USA - that's why the TiVo and its ilk are
permitted. Recording TV shows to VCR and then dubbing off multiple
copies and handing them out, that's a violation.
When I get a new music CD, one of the first things I do is rip a copy
to disk. I believe this is OK, at least in Canada, provided I don't
then proceed to, say, give away burnt copies, or lend out the original
and still listen to the ripped copy.
But it's still breaking the law, surely?
I'm not sure to what extent it's fair to call copyright infringement
"breaking the law"; this gets into semantic nitpickery about the
difference between civil torts and criminal code violations -
complicated by the fact that in the USA, a lot of stuff that (IMO)
should be a civil matter between the copyright holder and the putative
infringer now *is* a criminal code matter.
Yes, much of the archiving and sharing we (TINW) do is technically
copyright violation. Whether it is copyright violation that will
actually get anyone in trouble is another matter; I think what you are
(and we should be) trying for here is a way to make sure we stay on the
safe side of *that* line. Like, apparently, many of us here, I do not
consider all copyright infringement equally wrong; I won't burn someone
a copy of a current music CD, but I will pass around abandonware docs
and sometimes even software. (Whether such copyright violation is
immoral or unethical is another question entirely, one each archive
maintainer and user has to answer individually. Most seem to come down
on the "okay" side....)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
11:30 a.m.
New subject: Don Maslin/Archiving system software (was: ftp archives disappearing?)
der Mouse wrote:
Indeed.
I'm fairly certain it used to be in the UK, same for film - the copyright
notice states that lending is illegal. Maybe things are a little less
draconian now... (but then with more DRM around these days, it seems like the
companies are winning the war and people can do even less now with things that
they have in their possession than they once could)
I suppose it
does come down to a question of scale in the case of
distribution; how much is too much?
"Enough to annoy someone with deep pockets in a relevant jurisdiction",
seems to me to be the most pragmatic answer. I mean all
sorts of copyright laws get broken every day with things
like people recording TV shows to VCR, or lending their friends their
music CDs etc. and nobody gets in trouble for that.
Lending someone a music CD actually is not a copyright violation (well,
in most jurisdictions - there may be one somewhere that objects to it) Recording TV shows to VCR to timeshift (ie, to watch
at a time other
than when the show airs), I believe there's case law saying that's
acceptable, at least in the USA - that's why the TiVo and its ilk are
permitted.
Now I believe that's still illegal in the UK - but it's not illegal to sell a
device capable of doing it, it's just technically illegal for a user to
actually use it for that purpose.
Yes, much of the archiving and sharing we (TINW) do is
technically
copyright violation. Whether it is copyright violation that will
actually get anyone in trouble is another matter; I think what you are
(and we should be) trying for here is a way to make sure we stay on the
safe side of *that* line.
... or at least that if we do cross that line in someone's eyes, there are
easy ways of correcting the problem without harming the entire archive.
Like, apparently, many of us here, I do not
consider all copyright infringement equally wrong;
... and nor do the courts, it seems, but the problem is that the law's murky
at best, particularly in a global environment. I can't see how we can
realistically avoid falling foul of it at some point - it's either that or
seek written distribution permission for *anything* that's put online, which
would probably rule out most things given that companies have folded or
changed hands many times, authors may be no longer with us, and the question
of who actually "owns" any given item is difficult to say.
The position's something that just needs to be agreed on up-front I think,
rather than worried about later (which is what always seems to bite the big
online "public services")
cheers
Jules
2:41 p.m.
Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Recording TV shows to VCR to timeshift (ie, to watch
at a time other
than when the show airs), I believe there's case law saying that's
acceptable, at least in the USA - that's why the TiVo and its ilk are
permitted.
Now I believe that's still illegal in the UK - but it's not illegal to sell a
device capable of doing it, it's just technically illegal for a user to
actually use it for that purpose.
*>> snip <<*
cheers
Jules
Andrews reply:
Actually Jules, afaik, it's perfectly legal to record whatever you want, since
everyone does it. However, expect to get sued etc. if you are caught selling illegal
copies, airing it in your own private cinema or airing it in public without the written
permission of the copyright holder/s.
I'm no legal genius, but thats how I think it stands. I may be wrong though...
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
PS. If anyone is wondering why the messages I'm replying to don't have the
>'s at the start of each line, it's because Y! have auto-upgraded my email to
"Email Plus" which has this awful blue line down the left side in replace of the
>'s when replying. There is no way to change it afaik and thus once it is sent
there are no >'s to indicate what I am replying to.
I refuse to use Outlook Express until I get less than 500 emails in my Inbox (roughly 1200
at mo) as I don't wish to waste harddrive space - MS does enough of that with the
Windows Updates :(
11:06 a.m.
On 20 Mar 2007 at 12:31, Jules Richardson wrote:
Copyright law's murky at best and varies wildly
from country to country. It's
another reason I'd aim for a distributed archive as even if one particular
corner's hit by copyright problems it *shouldn't* take out the entire archive
(with all the content that *is* OK to distribute).
As an author writing code in a given country, it would be my
expectation that said code (or documentation) would be protected with
the laws of that country.
In regard to copyright, it's generally a safe bet that copyright is
good for a minimum of 70 years after publication--and probably longer
if you're talking about a WTO country. This is long enough that ANY
computer literature or programs that have been published are under
copyright protection. Being out of print or distrubution is not a
legal excuse for violating copyright--not for some old article from
Byte magazine, or an old Karl King march or a computer program.
It is always the most prudent action to ASK if something may be
posted. It's important when asking to observe that you are not
asking the copyright owner to put things in the public domain, but
simply to agree to an alternate distribution method. His (or any
appropriate pronoun here) rights still are in force and infringement
may still be prosecuted. Offering to add an explicit copyright
notice to the posted material might improve the odds of success.,
And if the copyright holder refuses, it's prudent to respect that
wish--period. You didn't create the material, you don't own it and
attaching a label such as "abandonware" doesn't put you on any higher
legal ground.
I'm assuming that before Al puts something up on bitsavers, he makes
some sort of effort to get an okay from the copyright holder before
posting. At least I hope he does.
Cheers,
Chuck
6:57 p.m.
New subject: Don Maslin/Archiving system software
Chuck Guzis wrote:
In regard to copyright, it's generally a safe bet
that copyright is
good for a minimum of 70 years after publication--and probably longer
if you're talking about a WTO country. This is long enough that ANY
computer literature or programs that have been published are under
copyright protection. Being out of print or distrubution is not a
legal excuse for violating copyright--not for some old article from
Byte magazine, or an old Karl King march or a computer program.
But the problem is *Freedom* here and you don't have that since
the land of the USA is the land of 'Lawyers'. If you wait 70 years
the lawyers will have changed that to 150 years. If you want
a good example look at DISNEY and them extending the copywrite on
a MOUSE.
Abandonware is not really abandon-ware but a grey area on marketing
old games and questionable programs. Note I found out that you can
buy what some call abandonware legaly as it is still being sold as
product. Some other programs I have pirated simply because they are
not being sold and I wanted to run that program.
It is always the most prudent action to ASK if
something may be
posted. It's important when asking to observe that you are not
asking the copyright owner to put things in the public domain, but
simply to agree to an alternate distribution method. His (or any
appropriate pronoun here) rights still are in force and infringement
may still be prosecuted. Offering to add an explicit copyright
notice to the posted material might improve the odds of success.,
And if the copyright holder refuses, it's prudent to respect that
wish--period. You didn't create the material, you don't own it and
attaching a label such as "abandonware" doesn't put you on any higher
legal ground.
Well when I think 'abandonware' that is PC stuff and that is mostly
off topic anyhow.I can think of a very rare DOS game that I want
-- email me if you have the only floppy of this game in Canada or the USA.
To me a more useful item is a real grey area problem, PDF's and software
on bitsavers. I would like to use my PDP-8 clone but I have no idea what
to documentation to download. While I would come under a 'hobbiest' licence
just who do you ask for advice here?
I'm assuming that before Al puts something up on
bitsavers, he makes
some sort of effort to get an okay from the copyright holder before
posting. At least I hope he does.
Cheers,
Chuck
PS. I don't use kermit since the NEW stuff has 30 day demo if you use
windows, and that I am forced to use.
6:33 p.m.
New subject: Don Maslin/Archiving system software
On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:57 PM, woodelf wrote:
PS. I don't use kermit since the NEW stuff has 30
day demo if you use
windows, and that I am forced to use.
Whoa...WHO is forcing you to use Windows? I will beat them up for
you!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
6:57 p.m.
New subject: Don Maslin/Archiving system software
> PS. I don't use kermit since the NEW stuff
has 30 day demo if you use
> windows, and that I am forced to use.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Dave McGuire wrote:
Whoa...WHO is forcing you to use Windows? I will
beat them up for
you!
Got time and energy to deal with a few dozen additional college
administrators?
8:08 p.m.
New subject: Don Maslin/Archiving system software
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:57 PM, woodelf wrote:
Whoa...WHO is forcing you to use Windows? I will beat them up for you!
Kill Mr BILL-- please. I use windows mostly for surfing the net and playing
a odd game or two. Alas since I don't have real computer, but just what
marketing called a computer two years ago and it time for a new computer.
I have a second partion on the HD for a different OS but right now I have
not installed anything on it.
Only in the last few years have learned about better CPU's than intel & clones
but nobody sells them as all the major computers I belive are using the 586+.
I would like to use a real unix box but I need a good printer, and hardware
and modern software to print pdf files for example.
-Dave
A PDP-10 like clone would be nice -- real hardware, not a emulation.
26 Mar
26 Mar
8:06 p.m.
New subject: Unsupported Software
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Mar 2007 at 12:31, Jules Richardson wrote:
Jerome Fine replies:
[Jay, if you feel that these software questions are too off-topic, kill
the post.]
As an author, perhaps you can answer the following question in respect
of IP?
Suppose that you have sold a license for a specific software program which
has some bugs and you offer a warranty. Do you feel that you have any
obligation to fix the bugs or is it easier to just allow the user to
return the
software and license and refund the license fees?
What about after the warranty period has expired? Do you rely on the
letter of the law and refuse to either refund or fix the software program?
Also, what do you think about a company who knows about the software
bugs and continues to sell the software program even though that company
is able to obtain free support from hobby users to fix the bugs, i.e. in
return
for allowing a hobby user to use the software program without payment, the
bugs will be fixed without charge?
Note that these questions are specifically with regard to a specific legacy
software program that was released in 1985, although there is a more recent
version that is now a bit less than 10 years old. However, even those
current
bugs in that software program are mostly (probably all) from a previous
version
that was released 1992 which means that they are at least 15 years old
and one
of the worst bugs was already present in the version released in 1980.
However,
since the last released version probably functions extremely well over 99%
of the time, it seems to me that another version is, at present, highly
unlikely.
I am not sure if the best description is unsupported or abandoned.
Certainly
I agree that the lack of support is probably reasonable considering that the
company in question probably does not have the expertise to fix the software
program nor is the current revenue from the sales sufficient to support
any staff.
But since it is possible to obtain free support from hobby users who
still enjoy
using the software program, I don't understand why the company continues to
refuse what seems like a win / win situation?
I think that I should distinguish between:
(a) Software programs which are pure entertainment - i.e. mostly games
- which
can't cause any harm to anyone other than perhaps the frustration
of a game
which has problems or does not work correctly for which any software
bugs can, in most cases, be actually considered to be a feature
of the game
(b) Software programs (including and especially operating systems)
which can
and not infrequently cause serious problems during operation to
both the
users of the software programs and to the individuals and
companies who
are being served by the users
Since any problems in (b) can be, and in the past on more than a few
situations
actually been, the cause of death, I consider there to be a complete
difference
between how serious (a) might be and how serious (b) actually is. Since
I don't
consider (a) to be an actual problem, ALL of the comments which follow are
with respect to (b).
Since none of us in classiccmp are going to have a major impact on the
current
IP laws, what I would appreciate are some comments on the above situation
along with an opinion on the following aspects.
After reading many opinions and observing the behaviour of many companies
who produce software programs over the last 47 years, I think that I can
summarize, obviously ONLY from my still limited viewpoint, as follows:
(i) Companies who purposely release software with known bugs and care very
little about fixing any bugs except when there are serious
financial problems.
(ii) Companies who take as much care as might seem reasonable, but
still have
no effective methods of dealing with problems when they arise.
(iii) Companies who have quality as their highest priority and who fix
any software
bugs within a reasonable time period and provide the fixes to
their end users
as soon as possible.
(iv) Companies who abandon their end users when any given software programs
are no longer profitable and refuse to consider releasing the
source code even
when there are still known bugs to be corrected.
(v) Companies who release the source code for software programs
(especially after
the company no longer provides any support or after no additional
releases will
be made) to at least the hobby community and in some case make the
source
code freely available, although without any additional support.
Copyright law's murky at best and varies
wildly from country to country. It's
another reason I'd aim for a distributed archive as even if one particular
corner's hit by copyright problems it *shouldn't* take out the entire archive
(with all the content that *is* OK to distribute).
As an author writing code in a given country, it would be my
expectation that said code (or documentation) would be protected with
the laws of that country.
In regard to copyright, it's generally a safe bet
that copyright is
good for a minimum of 70 years after publication--and probably longer
if you're talking about a WTO country. This is long enough that ANY
computer literature or programs that have been published are under
copyright protection. Being out of print or distrubution is not a
legal excuse for violating copyright--not for some old article from
Byte magazine, or an old Karl King march or a computer program.
It is always the most prudent action to ASK if something may be
posted. It's important when asking to observe that you are not
asking the copyright owner to put things in the public domain, but
simply to agree to an alternate distribution method. His (or any
appropriate pronoun here) rights still are in force and infringement
may still be prosecuted. Offering to add an explicit copyright
notice to the posted material might improve the odds of success.,
And if the copyright holder refuses, it's prudent to respect that
wish--period. You didn't create the material, you don't own it and
attaching a label such as "abandonware" doesn't put you on any higher
legal ground.
I'm assuming that before Al puts something up on bitsavers, he makes
some sort of effort to get an okay from the copyright holder before
posting. At least I hope he does.
Cheers,
Chuck
It seems probable from everything that I am aware of
that the company is ignoring hobby users who don't
have a license to use the software program.
The only result of attempting to resolve the situation
would probably be a lot of effort to stop the hobby users
and no revenue in return when that is accomplished - since
the hobby users will just quit.
With regard to commercial users who use the software
program without a license, many are not even aware
that they need the license any longer with their
current hardware / software. In the US and Canada,
I have found that most try to comply, although I know
of one case many years ago when the company demanded
a serial number before the license would be issued.
The end user told the company to send the invoice for
the license since the required serial number was inside
the hardware (on the CPU) and the end user refused to
open the cabinet. The company eventually did send the
invoice and was paid without a serial number being provided.
Note that I will not provide the specific name of the
company since I am discussing issues as opposed to a
specific example. Probably anyone who knows what I do
(and did for a living) knows exactly what I am discussing
and which company.
I think this discussion should be limited to ONE response
per person. I am curious as to what other people think
is a reasonable approach. I know of one individual who
probably feels that IP rights trump everything and that
no bug ever needs to be fixed. Like selling a car with
a defective gas tank.
I will only reply to any specific questions off-list.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
6480
days inactive
6488
days old
10 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
Billy.Pettit＠wdc.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
jhfinedp3k＠compsys.to -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA