223 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
223 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
Copyrighting Public Domain Programs
|
||
by
|
||
June B. Moore, JD
|
||
Member, California State Bar
|
||
32 Salinas Avenue
|
||
San Anselmo CA 94960
|
||
(415) 456-5889
|
||
Also: Marin RBBS
|
||
(415) 383-0473
|
||
|
||
There is concern about the copyright status of the programs
|
||
provided by innovative and diligent members of the CP/M Users
|
||
Group to the Group with the understanding, explicitly stated
|
||
or otherwise, that the programs were contributed to the
|
||
"public domain."
|
||
|
||
The term "public domain" means, from a legal point of view, a
|
||
program or other work that does not have copyright protection.
|
||
The indiscriminate use of the word confuses the copyright
|
||
issues. A work disclosed to a specific group of people for a
|
||
limited purpose is not necessarily "public domain" software.
|
||
|
||
A new federal copyright law went into effect on January 1,
|
||
1978, which complicates the following discussion for that
|
||
software written and/or contributed prior to that date. I
|
||
will start with a discussion of the law as it applies now and
|
||
to programs written after January 1, 1978. The new law is
|
||
Title 17, U.S. Code. Any written material (including computer
|
||
programs) fixed in a tangible form (written somewhere, ie a
|
||
printout) is considered copyrighted without any additional
|
||
action on the part of the author. Thus, it is not necessary
|
||
that a copy of the program be deposited with the Copyright
|
||
Office in Washington for the program to be protected as
|
||
copyrighted.
|
||
|
||
A contribution of a program to the members of the public (CP/M
|
||
Users Group) for their noncommercial use constitutes a license
|
||
for that purpose and that purpose only. It does not destroy
|
||
the programmers rights in the copyright to the program.
|
||
HOWEVER, the government does not enforce the programmers
|
||
rights. A copyright is a property right, just like the right
|
||
you have in the house you own. If someone trespasses on your
|
||
property, the cops may come and put the fellow in jail, but
|
||
they will not stop him from doing it again nor will they
|
||
procure compensation for any damage the intruder may have done
|
||
to your property. You have to do that yourself by going to
|
||
court. So it is with copyrights. In order to prevent anyone
|
||
from selling your programs you must ask a court (federal) to
|
||
stop him by an injunction and to give you damages for the
|
||
injury he has done to you by selling the program.
|
||
|
||
Going to court requires that the program be registered with
|
||
the Copyright Office in Washington,D.C. The fee is $10.
|
||
|
||
The government will prosecute CRIMINAL copyright
|
||
infringements, such as where someone simply copies (as in
|
||
copying an audio or videotape) for profit, and when the
|
||
government can show criminal intent (ie, knowing violation of
|
||
the law or fraud in the acts of the copier). This is not done
|
||
very frequently except in the case of wholesale audio and
|
||
video taping pirates.
|
||
|
||
The copyright law has a concept known as a "derivative work."
|
||
A derivative work is one which is based on a work already
|
||
entitled to and protected by copyright. The original author
|
||
of a work has the sole rights to "derivative" works derived
|
||
from his work. He can authorize (license) others to prepare
|
||
derivative works from his work, as in the case of a programmer
|
||
of a Users Group program who says "If anyone fixes this for a
|
||
DCHayes MM-100, let me know."
|
||
|
||
I suspect that many of the programs contributed to the Group
|
||
and their modifications fall within this category of license -
|
||
that is, users have been allowed to prepare derivative works.
|
||
However, the original author does not lose his original
|
||
copyright! And all the derivative works made using the
|
||
original are dependent on the continuation of the license
|
||
except as to the parts added by the author of the derivative
|
||
works. A simple explanation might help: A program provides
|
||
for generating data showing ratios for sales to inventory
|
||
turnovers (I know the example is silly), and the output is
|
||
simply a bunch of numbers. The second programmer decides to
|
||
enhance the program by turning the numbers into some kind of
|
||
chart or graph. The program that generated the numbers is
|
||
protected as to the original author. The output formatting
|
||
ONLY is protected as a license derivative work to the second
|
||
programmer.
|
||
|
||
The restriction placed on the programs in recent years
|
||
limiting use to individuals on their personal machines and
|
||
denying use of a program for commercial purposes is probably a
|
||
valid restriction of the license granted in the CP/M Users
|
||
Group Library. It constitutes fair warning to all who would
|
||
lift the program and attempt to convert it to commercial
|
||
purposes that such use is not licensed. It is not clear that
|
||
such restriction applies automatically to earlier donations to
|
||
the Group, unless there is something explicit in the
|
||
documentation that accompanies the work itself when it is
|
||
distributed.
|
||
|
||
In many instances, the programs donated prior to 1978 were not
|
||
copyrighted (that is, contained no copyright notice and were
|
||
not registered with the Copyright Office). The status of
|
||
these programs is not clear, although a case can be made that
|
||
they were initially distributed only to paid-up members of the
|
||
CP/M Users Group. My documentation from the Users Group,
|
||
which is undated but which is postmarked June 13, 1978, states
|
||
"The material [donations of programs] is received by the Group
|
||
with the understanding that the contributor is authorized to
|
||
make it available to hobbiests for their individual non-
|
||
commercial use.....Members receiving material are free and
|
||
encouraged to share it with other hobbiests for their
|
||
individual non- commercial use." The membership information
|
||
included a request for any member's knowledge of persons
|
||
violating the non-commercial restriction on the programs
|
||
distributed. A membership fee of $4 was charged for 1978 as a
|
||
prerequisite to receiving material.
|
||
|
||
This limitation on the prospective use of a program obtained
|
||
from the group indicates that the distribution was limited to
|
||
non-commercial users. Pre-1/1/78 software that was not
|
||
automatically copyrighted and did not contain a copyright
|
||
notice could be protected only under state laws in existence
|
||
at that time. The state laws varied considerably but
|
||
generally the rule is that, if the work was not distributed
|
||
willy-nilly to the public without restriction, the state law
|
||
protected the work even if the federal law niceties were not
|
||
complied with. The problem is whether the restrictions of the
|
||
CP/Users Group distribution were sufficient limitations on the
|
||
"publication" of the program. Publication destroys a state
|
||
law copyright, making the work free to all. "Publication"
|
||
here means making it available to the public at large, even
|
||
though restrictions were placed on the initial disclosure of
|
||
the program. That is something only the court or jury
|
||
actually hearing the case can decide and may well turn on
|
||
facts not available to me. For example, was any real effort
|
||
made to prevent computer stores from distributing the programs
|
||
to their customers who were not members of the Group? Were
|
||
the non-commercial use limitations explained to those
|
||
customers? To the computer stores?
|
||
|
||
One other concern has been expressed by some program authors,
|
||
those authors who have desired not to have their programs
|
||
modified but whose programs have nonetheless been modified.
|
||
Referring to the discussion above about the limitations on use
|
||
of contributed programs, if the limitation did not authorize
|
||
anything but "use" of the program, then the modifications
|
||
constituted "derivative" works that were not authorized.
|
||
This, unfortunately, would be a very tricky thing to prove,
|
||
and it would have to be proved - how did the parties
|
||
understand the authorization to use the programs (ie, was
|
||
modification prevented but noncommercial use allowed?). If
|
||
there was an implied license to modify (for example, because
|
||
the program was included with other programs in which
|
||
modifications were explicitly authorized), it might be very
|
||
difficult to prove infringement under either the state or
|
||
federal law, depending on which was applicable.
|
||
|
||
It should be clear from the above, however, that modifications
|
||
of programs entitled to copyright protection are infringements
|
||
if they are not authorized by the owner of the copyright in
|
||
the original program. The problem is in the proof of lack of
|
||
authorization.
|
||
|
||
Since January 1, 1978, all programs are protected by federal
|
||
copyright laws without regard to copyright notice or
|
||
registration with the Copyright Office and the state laws no
|
||
longer apply. The federal law "preempted" the state laws on
|
||
that date. But the federal rules apply across the board ONLY
|
||
to works first "fixed" or "written" after that date. However,
|
||
improvements or modifications in one's own program can qualify
|
||
for federal copyright protection under the new law and perhaps
|
||
those interested or affected by the problem should make formal
|
||
registration of their works as well as including the copyright
|
||
notice somewhere in the program.
|
||
|
||
----------------------------------
|
||
|
||
It is obvious that most volunteer programmers do not have the
|
||
finances or time, or inclination for that matter, to pursue a
|
||
legal remedy in the courts. At the same time, they do not
|
||
want the software they authored to be used by others for
|
||
commercial gain without some control over its use.
|
||
|
||
I suggest that microcomputer software authors nation-wide form
|
||
an organization similar to that of ASCAP or BMI, although on a
|
||
smaller scale, to monitor improper uses of software donated to
|
||
the hobbiest for personal use. Only through concentrating the
|
||
efforts and power of all authors can real protection be
|
||
obtained. Otherwise, the unscrupulous vendor is going to take
|
||
his chances that the individual programmer will not or can not
|
||
defend his copyright.
|
||
|
||
Such a group might be formed with the support of an active
|
||
computer group like the NJ Amateur Computer Group or the
|
||
Homebrew Computer Club in California. Or it could be
|
||
established independently if there were sufficient interest
|
||
and an organizer could be found to do the necessary paperwork,
|
||
collect the dues needed to provide a war chest, and hire the
|
||
attorneys and other persons necessary. It wouldn't have to be
|
||
a full time job for anyone but it would have to be more than
|
||
volunteer activity.
|
||
|
||
My suggestion appeared (anonymously) in an article in the July
|
||
1982 Microcomputing. I am not interested in doing it,
|
||
although I would cooperate with any efforts along these lines
|
||
with counsel and advice.
|
||
|
||
I suggest, however, that an early attack, which might include
|
||
programmers for profit whose programs are slightly modified by
|
||
fly-by-night vendors without compensation, will establish the
|
||
principles necessary to deter future invasions of your
|
||
copyrights.
|
||
|
||
June B. Moore, JD
|
||
Member, California State Bar
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
mber of files per line
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
File names with and are subdirectory names
|
||
Press ENTER to resume<6D>$ stuvwxyz{|}~<13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><><EFBFBD><13><><EFBFBD><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><13><13><13><13><13><>m<14><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><13><13><><14><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><13><><EFBFBD><13><13><> :C<> <04>x<>~{ @<40><18><><18>+);<01><<3C>? <1C>?w<>/<01><>V<>.p $R G /{a<>.LN<4C><08>
|
||
>z2 kҾ<12>@<07>|<7C><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD>8<EFBFBD> <0C>FOĄv<C484><76>}<7D>aD<61>t<>:i<><69><EFBFBD><EFBFBD>-<2D><>Ў)<29>2<EFBFBD><32><0F>k <1F>x<EFBFBD><78>0<EFBFBD><30> {<N<>T<EFBFBD><54>s<EFBFBD>S[<5B>N|ހ(<16><1<><31><EFBFBD>(*<05> <00>3<11><08>`<60>Ef<05>{ ʺY<CABA>Lp<4C> <04><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><0E>k@<40>ԟ<EFBFBD><D49F>X<EFBFBD><58><EFBFBD>|<7C><><05><>ҵ<18> <00><><EFBFBD>j<EFBFBD><01><>t<EFBFBD><74>+<2B>F<>j<EFBFBD>J<EFBFBD>"g<>@<40>2<EFBFBD>%<25><><0F><>/<2F><0F><><EFBFBD> <1D><>}y<>h<EFBFBD>a<EFBFBD>0+<2B><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD>@ <0C>0<EFBFBD>V<EFBFBD>:ѧ_<D1A7>Y<EFBFBD>pl<70>{h\<06><><EFBFBD><06><0F><04>9<04><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD> <20>ހ<EFBFBD>h<EFBFBD><68><EFBFBD>yz<06> R<>V<EFBFBD><56><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><13>qz;<3B><><EFBFBD> <09>
|
||
!zZ<7A><5A>Vh<56><68>8<19><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD>u<EFBFBD>_q9<71>~<7E>\<5C><><EFBFBD>1<03>HU<48><55>d <1E><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD>0<EFBFBD><30><EFBFBD> <09><02>
|
||
<13><> <09><>-4f1j}<7D>d<EFBFBD><04><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><13><>ݤi<DDA4>~@<40><><EFBFBD>Qڊ<51>u 設ɸ<E8A8AD>s<EFBFBD><73>^<5E>%<25><>h~ <20><><EFBFBD>_<EFBFBD>Y<EFBFBD>t?x<><78> <1D><><EFBFBD>><3E>ƨ"<22><><EFBFBD>%<25><>p<EFBFBD><70>|<7C><>A<EFBFBD>:G?;<17><><EFBFBD><02> <00>O<> }<7D>o<EFBFBD><6F><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD> |