12 Mar
2017
12 Mar
'17
6:15 p.m.
I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough AIX documentation, but
the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?
Cindy Croxton
12 Mar
12 Mar
6:55 p.m.
i wouldn't see why not. You aren't NDA'd on anything, and if they are
not government issue
you own them.
IANAL of course.
On 3/12/2017 3:15 PM, Electronics Plus via cctalk wrote:
I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough
AIX documentation, but
the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?
Cindy Croxton
7:40 p.m.
> I have a number of binders that have pretty
thorough AIX documentation, but
> the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
> companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
i wouldn't see why not. You aren't NDA'd
on anything, and if they are not
government issue
you own them.
IANAL of course.
While not a COPYRIGHT issue, it is possible, and not unlikely, that they
were considered to be part of the course work, and that those taking the
course may have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, not to pass them on.
If there is not a statement about license on them, then it is a reasonably
safe risk. The person who took the course, and agreed to any such license
could be liable. If they want to take action, then they would have a weak
case based on not having made the license terms known and included in the
work. (mens rea, etc.)
Similarly, although post Berne convention upholds copyright on works
without a copyright notice, failing to have a copyright notice is a really
BAD idea.
That doesn't mean that a litigious pubisher won't be a nuisance.
If it is a significant amount (many copies, high price each, etc.) then
make a good faith effort to contact the originator of the materials, and
consult a real IP lawyer.
Also, be aware that legal advice here is often tainted by our own
interests, hence the fiction of "abandonware".
IANAL,
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
9:03 p.m.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Such an agreement would need to be in writing and explicit. Otherwise
it's just like a text book which you bought for the class. See below
for what you can do.
> I have a
number of binders that have pretty thorough AIX documentation,
> but
> the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by
> private
> companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
i wouldn't see why not. You aren't NDA'd on anything, and if they are not
government issue
you own them.
IANAL of course.
While not a COPYRIGHT issue, it is possible, and not unlikely, that they
were considered to be part of the course work, and that those taking the
course may have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, not to pass them on. If there is not a statement about license on them,
then it is a reasonably
safe risk. The person who took the course, and agreed to any such license
could be liable. If they want to take action, then they would have a weak
case based on not having made the license terms known and included in the
work. (mens rea, etc.)
Similarly, although post Berne convention upholds copyright on works without
a copyright notice, failing to have a copyright notice is a really BAD idea.
That doesn't mean that a litigious pubisher won't be a nuisance.
If it is a significant amount (many copies, high price each, etc.) then make
a good faith effort to contact the originator of the materials, and consult
a real IP lawyer.
Also, be aware that legal advice here is often tainted by our own interests,
hence the fiction of "abandonware".
Resell: sure. The copyright interest of the seller is extinguished
when you purchase them by whatever means absent an explicit agreement
to the contrary.
Copy and upload the copy: No. Copyright Law would preclude that absent
permission from the current owner of the copyright.
Copy for yourself and then sell: Legal grey area, most likely not
legal, but kinda depends on your local jurisdiction.
Copy and upload to bitkeepers: Possibly the most beneficial thing you
could do. Likely not a lawful copy, thought (see above).
Warner
10:07 p.m.
>>> AIX documentation, but the trouble is,
there are from security
>>> classes that were taught by private companies. Am I legally allowed
>>> to resell these?
> While not a COPYRIGHT issue, it is possible, and not unlikely, that they
> were considered to be part of the course work, and that those taking the
> course may have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, not to pass them on.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Warner Losh wrote:
Such an agreement would need to be in writing and
explicit. Otherwise
it's just like a text book which you bought for the class. See below
for what you can do.
Materials supplied as part of a course, are NOT just like a text book,
which is commercially available separately. These materials were
apparently never available except by enrolling in the course.
Sure, such an agreement would have to exit, but not necessarily attached
to the course workbook. It could exist as part of the documents that the
participant signed to REGISTER for the course.
And, as the appellate court ruled in ProCD V Zeidenberg, it does not have
to be in writing, nor signed, so long as it is known AT THE TIME that the
agreement was reached. (not necessarily NOW!)
There is no problem with selling the sole copy in terms of COPYRIGHT law.
Your comments are entirely about the copyright law. Which is not the
issue to be concerned about in this case.
The worse problem here is whether the previous owner entered into a
licence agreement as part of registering for the course.
I have run into such license agreements in registering for commercial
courses. ("all materials used in the course . . . ")
Not seeing a license agreement attached to the materials is sufficient to
show that you had no willful intent to violate it, and that should be
enough to sell them, in good faith. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't
exist.
(Certainly having a work with the title/verso (copyright) page torn out
is not the same as it never having had one, of course, but the license
agreement need never have been physically attached)
Remember that ProCD V Zeidenberg was about material that is presumably not
even copyrightable! but the courts upheld a violation of license, on a
shrink-wrap license! It was a LICENSE lawsuit, not a copyright one,
although that was also alleged.
http://www.freibrun.com/not-fast-appeals-court-reverses-upholds-shrink-wrap…
Zeidenberg bought a retail "single user" copy (not even the multi-user
version) of a CD-ROM telephone directory. He then created a website
selling access to the content from it.
The appellate court explicitly ruled that ProCD did NOT have to print the
license agreement on the outside of the box.
The licensee does NOT need to sign!
"A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show
agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the
existence of such a contract." (about EXACTLY that.)
(such as the documents regietering for the course!)
Zeidenberg DID click the "I accept" box.
If there WAS a license agreement, then it was abject stupidity for the
licensor of these materials not to embed that information on the item!
Personally, I feel that the court gave far too much power to adhesion
contracts!
IANAL, "I Ain't No Asshole Lawyer"
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
10:32 p.m.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Unless they are covered under a separate agreement that's explicit,
Copyright Law applies. Being part of the course isn't magical.
>>>
AIX documentation, but the trouble is, there are from security classes
>>> that were taught by private companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?
>
> While not a COPYRIGHT issue, it is possible, and not unlikely, that they
> were considered to be part of the course work, and that those taking the
> course may have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, not to pass them on.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Warner Losh wrote:
Such an agreement would need to be in writing and explicit. Otherwise
it's just like a text book which you bought for the class. See below
for what you can do.
Materials supplied as part of a course, are NOT just like a text book, which
is commercially available separately. These materials were apparently never
available except by enrolling in the course. Sure, such an agreement would have to exit, but not
necessarily attached to
the course workbook. It could exist as part of the documents that the
participant signed to REGISTER for the course.
And, as the appellate court ruled in ProCD V Zeidenberg, it does not have to
be in writing, nor signed, so long as it is known AT THE TIME that the
agreement was reached. (not necessarily NOW!)
That gets tricky to enforce. Absent a real, written agreement, the
courts have nothing to enforce. ProCD v Zeidenberg seems to fly in the
face of simple contract law.
There is no problem with selling the sole copy in
terms of COPYRIGHT law.
Your comments are entirely about the copyright law. Which is not the issue
to be concerned about in this case.
The worse problem here is whether the previous owner entered into a licence
agreement as part of registering for the course.
Yes. That would be an explicit agreement.
I have run into such license agreements in registering
for commercial
courses. ("all materials used in the course . . . ")
Not seeing a license agreement attached to the materials is sufficient to
show that you had no willful intent to violate it, and that should be enough
to sell them, in good faith. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Which makes it hard to enforce in court, especially years after the fact.
(Certainly having a work with the title/verso
(copyright) page torn out is
not the same as it never having had one, of course, but the license
agreement need never have been physically attached)
Remember that ProCD V Zeidenberg was about material that is presumably not
even copyrightable! but the courts upheld a violation of license, on a
shrink-wrap license! It was a LICENSE lawsuit, not a copyright one,
although that was also alleged.
http://www.freibrun.com/not-fast-appeals-court-reverses-upholds-shrink-wrap…
Zeidenberg bought a retail "single user" copy (not even the multi-user
version) of a CD-ROM telephone directory. He then created a website selling
access to the content from it.
The appellate court explicitly ruled that ProCD did NOT have to print the
license agreement on the outside of the box.
The licensee does NOT need to sign!
"A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show
agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence
of such a contract." (about EXACTLY that.)
(such as the documents regietering for the course!)
Zeidenberg DID click the "I accept" box.
If there WAS a license agreement, then it was abject stupidity for the
licensor of these materials not to embed that information on the item!
Again, that's an explicit, in writing modification of the normal terms
of copyright. Click through licensing has been, I must note, non
uniformly enforced.
Personally, I feel that the court gave far too much
power to adhesion
contracts!
Yea. It certainly sounds like it, but I've not looked into the
particulars of that case to know for sure. One of the tenants of the
ProCD case is that the terms must be commercially reasonable and not
otherwise unconscionable which gives a lot of wiggle room for a good
lawyer. Absent seeing any agreement, it's hard to know what the terms
are. And if a number of years have passed since the original material
was distributed, it can be difficult to prove that the person making
the sale has an obligation to follow the original license if it wasn't
provided upon a sale contrary to the original license. It also depends
where you are located (China doesn't enforce click through licenses,
for example).
So there's lots of "yea butt's" here and the specifics of the original
company and License matter a lot. Absent those, it's quite difficult
to know what applies here. Maybe there was a license. Maybe the
licensor still cares. Maybe they can prove it in court. Maybe a simple
sale would trigger a case. Maybe not. It's all about how much risk you
are willing to assume in the absence of concrete, verifiable
information as to whether you proceed with the sale....
Warner
12 Mar
12 Mar
11:14 p.m.
On 3/12/2017 3:15 PM, Electronics Plus via cctalk wrote:
I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough
AIX documentation, but
the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?
Cindy Croxton
The thread went into a lot of technicalities. however you mention
this
is for AIX. I am currently up on IBM and I'd find it odd if there were
not clear notices in any class document with IBM copyrights, dates,
etc. Also if the strings mentioned at length in the other answer thread
exist, and IBM had anything to do with this (as in they own AIX), the
owner of the course usually publishes such notices clearly as well. Not
absolutely, but every document since IBM lost the copyrights on MVX and
the like is pretty well done right by their legal department.
Maybe some scans or snaps of the front part of the document of such
notices we can help more if it isn't clear with what they put there.
thanks
jim
13 Mar
13 Mar
10:02 a.m.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
A lot of /completely irrelevant/ technicalities, especially considering
the material in question is a physical object, not software.
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
On 3/12/2017 3:15 PM, Electronics Plus via cctalk wrote:
> I have a number of binders that have pretty thorough AIX documentation, but
> the trouble is, there are from security classes that were taught by private
> companies. Am I legally allowed to resell these?
>
I would expect they could be sold just like any other book.
Cindy Croxton
The thread went into a lot of technicalities. however you mention
this is
2693
days inactive
2694
days old
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
imp＠bsdimp.com -
jwsmail＠jwsss.com -
linimon＠lonesome.com -
sales＠elecplus.com