[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: My Website Has Been Taken Down



mdj wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:04 am, "Bill Buckels" <bbuck...@mts.net> wrote:

That is true of course and nobody is trying to take away Vince's copyright,
reverse engineer his product, or steal his copyright which by the way is on
the source code and NOT on the binary copy.

I think despite the fact that the US provides the usual silo-istic
perspective, one needs to understand that there are many other countries
with a less-mercenary social framework that balance intellectual property
against the public's rights. In all fairness there are also other countries
who suppress individual rights and public rights altogether except
selectively, although this is kind-of like not being able to afford a lawyer
in the US:)

And that's precisely it: the purpose of Copyright is to balance the
rights of individuals/organisations vs. the public interest.

Some people here seem to be under the mistaken impression that if an
act violates Copyright then act is absolutely illegal, when in reality
Copyright violations must be evaluated both with respect to both
Copyright and other existing laws in a given jurisdiction. Where other
laws contradict Copyright, they almost invariably take precedence.

For example, the WIPO recommendations that were implemented as the
DMCA in the US (and carried over to countries that have FTA's with the
US) directly violate parts of the Trade Practices Act in Australia and
New Zealand. What does this mean in practice? The classic example is
DVD region coding. Selling a locked player is a violation of the Trade
Practices Act, since it prevents consumers from playing media they've
legitimately acquired. The fact that the DMCA empowers copyright
holders to prosecute those who bypass their encryption locks is
irrelevant in this context.

If we're lucky, some smart legilstator will propose an "Abandonware"
clause that would allow software such as this to be distributed
without fear of reprisal. Of course, whether the hands of vested
interests would ever allow such a clause to enter the law is a matter
for an entirely different debate.

Matt

I found this clause rather interesting while reading this section of the US copyright law:

"108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives"

...

For purposes of this subsection, a format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

(d) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to a copy, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, of no more than one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue, or to a copy or phonorecord of a small part of any other copyrighted work, if �

(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and

(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.


How this could one day cover abandon-ware or as Bill B. brings up the fair use argument, I dunno. Emulators muddy up the idea of "necessary device". As you point out, there seems to be some grey area in the interpretation of copyright law. IANAL, but this is an interesting topic for us retro-computer "researchers and archivists" :-)

Dave...