Hacker Chronicles 1/HACKER1.ISO/cud3/cud325c.txt

Text File | 1992-09-20 | 5KB | 110 lines

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 13:10 GMT
From: "Thomas J. Klotzbach" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comments to Bill Vajk's posting in CuD #3.22

I am posting to the CuD to address factual and other errors that Bill
Vajk made in his original posting to CuD #3.22.  I had hoped to avoid
this course of action, but feel it necessary due to the puzzling
actions of Mr Vajk.

I originally replied directly to Mr. Vajk with my concerns about his
posting.  He replied back to send him specific information or "retire
>from the conversation".  I sent back the information he requested and
Mr. Vajk never responded.  I also sent two follow-up letters with
again, no response.  I came to the conclusion that Mr. Vajk was going
to make no attempt in the foreseeable future to address the errors in
his original posting to the CuD, so now I present them to the
readership.  My attempt is not to "bash" Mr. Vajk, but to hopefully
correct some of the disinformation that Mr. Vajk has posted to the
CuD.

   Bill writes:

   >If this is the case, then possession is not illegal, because
   >the text is protected by commercial exploitation by the
   copyright >laws and Len should have not been charged with
   criminal. Copyright is a >matter for civil suit...

   This is misleading, as it implies that copyright infringement may
not be remedied in criminal court.  There are also provisions for
criminal proceedings if a person willfully infringes a copyright for
among other things, private financial gain (17 USC 506 et seq.; 18 USC
2319).  This half-truth (copyright law only allows remedy in civil
court) seems to be circulating about the net with great frequency.  A
knowledgeable netter wrote to me and stated that the reason that the
government does not pursue more cases with the aforementioned statute
is that the criminal penalties are not as large as the interstate
transportation of stolen property and wire fraud statutes provide for
violators.

   Bill goes on:

   >...It seems that AT&T source code (according to one of the Foley
   >affidavits) bears legends which claim both proprietary rights and a
   >copyright.  You stipulate proprietary.  The dual labeling of the
   >original software should do a lot to remove it from consideration as
   >truly proprietary information.  The laws regarding copyrights require
   >that all copyright material is subject to deposit at the Library of
   >Congress, where any citizen has a right to read and review.

   The ownership of copyright is distinct from the ownership of
the object in which the work is embodied (17 USC 101 et seq.; 17 USC
202).  You imply that the dual labeling of the source code suggests
that the work is not truly proprietary information, by stating that
"the dual labeling of the original software should do a lot to remove
it from consideration as truly proprietary information".  Rubbish.
AT&T is within their rights to do what they did.  The notice of
copyright MAY be placed on publicly distributed copies of a work (17
USC 401).  Labeling a work as copyrighted does not imply a forfeiture
of any proprietary rights (17 USC 202 et seq.; 17 USC 401, also please
see Douglas v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App. 497 S.W. 2d 308, 310 and Green v.
Lewis, 221 Va.  547, 272 S.E. 2d 181, 185).  In effect, proprietary
declares that you are the owner of the work.  You may also copyright
the work as well.  And what does the bit about "copyright material is
subject to deposit and any citizen has the right to review" about?
Are you implying that somehow Len Rose was within his rights to copy
the source code in an attempt to review it?  If you are, you are
incorrect.  Copyright law is fairly specific on the limitation of
exclusive rights as they pertain to computer programs (it is the
section that software makers refer to when they allow the owner of a
copy of software to make backup copies - 17 USC 117).

   Bill also writes:

   >Twice now, regarding the resultants of the E-911 case you've been long
   >on assumptions, short on proof.  Twice now, regarding the resultants of
   >the E-911 case you've been long on promises, short on results.  Given
   >this history, I ask, would a "responsible" man now seek truth and
   >publish it, or retire from this discussion.

   But Bill then states:

   >Thus far, it seems most computer laws have been written at the behest
   >of special interests instead of the public interest.  The laws already
   >inflict restrictions contrary to generally understood and accepted
   >constitutional provisions.

Well, Bill, would you please provide some "proof" for the
readership on the aforementioned statement?  YOU imply much while
proving little.

There are other errors in Mr Vajk's article to the CuD and I am
still in the process of researching them.  Again, I am not attempting
to split hairs, but Mr. Vajk has a responsibility to not put "spin" on
what the laws/statues/etc mean, a spin that distorts the facts at hand
and does a disservice to you and I, the readers of the CuD.

In closing:

   Bill Vajk writes:

   >...What has Gene Spafford done to correct errors he has made?  Has his
   >behavior in these matters met the criteria for responsibility he demands
   >from others?

I ask the same question of Bill Vajk.  What has he done to correct
the errors he has made in his posting to the CuD #3.22?

------------------------------