NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/sys/atari/8bit/3881

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-26 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!bu.edu!dartvax!coos.dartmouth.edu!crow
From: [e-mail] (Preston F. Crow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.8bit
Subject: Re: Piracy, morals and Microsoft employees
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jul 92 06:51:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The News Manager)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 62

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:


>It's worthy of note that the entire piracy issue could be moot, since some of
>the copyrighted titles involved may be beyond the lifetime of Copyright.
>(Lifetime of copyright? There have been court decisions along these lines)

I believe that with a revision to the laws in 1978 (which would cover most
if not all Atari software), copyrights last until the holder dies or, for
corporatly held copyrights, 100 years.  I may not be remembering this
exactly, but assuming that most of the programmers are still alive, then
the copyrights are still very valid.

>Further, if fair effort has been made identify the legal holders of the
>copyright, and the holder of that copyright no longer exists and the
>copyright wasn't explicitly transferred then the expression of the work
>falls into the public domain. Basically, a non-existent corporation can't
>hold a copyright.

You may have a point here, but you would have to be very careful in making
sure.  The copyright may have been implicitly transferred back to the
author according to a clause in the contract with no action being taken
at the time the corporation dissolved.  Furthermore, a company that bought
the assets (possibly for liquidation), may have inadvertantly acquired the
copyrights.  I would be rather surprised if very much software has entered
the public domain due to corporate dissolutions.  Still, it would not
be surprising if the new copyright holders would be more receptive to
giving up their rights.

>Another factor worthy of note - most Atari products weren't licensed. If
>you look at, say, a Microsoft product, you'll note that you never OWN
>the product. Your purchase is a license to use. If the product were actually
>sold, then you would _own_ the product and the vendor would have no right to
>dicate the terms by which you used it. However, Atari products were sold
>long before this distinction was recognized and thus are not restricted in
>the same way modern products are.

That is interesting.  Why is software now licensed?  What is the legal
distinction?  Does it effect how the copyright applies or only make a
difference in how much control big brother (oops, I meant Microsoft)
has in how we use the software?

>Back in the real world, (the legal world is so enfused with lies as to not
>qualify,) you have a problem of reason versus the law. The law clearly
>supports Derek's position, but the law in my town also states that anyone
>can file a noise complaint at ANY time no matter what the volume level and
>you MUST comply.  Certainly, these laws have some real purpose, but the letter
>of the law isn't the intended use of the law.  Unfortunately, writing laws
>that come out like their intent seems impossible, something that lawyers
>(and Derek, it seems) (ab)use to their heart's content.

>Not to be callous, I must admit Derek comes across like the Serbs declaring
>that feeding starving Croatians is a crime.

Or a dictator complaining about how the US is stealing the country he
rightfully took over.

--PC

Luke Skywalker:  "You are my father, prepare to die!"
Darth Vader:  "Stop saying that!"
Luke Sky@#$^*&  Oops, wrong movie.