Re: Mecc titles

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Supertimer writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
> >Supertimer writes ...
> >>
 ....

> >> Now it is a federal crime to make available
> >> copyrighted software whatever its commercial value and even
> >> if the offender does not make a profit off doing so.  Also, it
> >> is not merely a case of the copyright holder suing the infringer
> >> anymore.  The Justice Department has the power to push a
> >> federal case against the offender.
> >>
> >> And that's just what happened.  For the first time, someone
> >> has been convicted of just making available commercial
> >> software on his site:
> >>
> >> http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9908/20/internet.theft/index.htm
> >
> >     This link gives a "Not Found" error.
> 
> Drop the index.htm from the end and try it
 ....

     Thanks. Here is a snip of the report from www.cnn.com:

>>
Oregon student convicted
under new Internet copyright
theft law

August 20, 1999 
Web posted at: 4:01 PM EDT (2001 GMT) 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A 22-year-old University of Oregon senior
who made thousands of musical recordings, movies, and computer software
programs available to the public on his website Friday became the first
person convicted of internet copyright theft under a federal law enacted in
1997. 

Justice Department officials in Washington D.C. and Eugene, Oregon
announced Jeffrey Gerard Levy pled guilty to a felony count of criminal
infringement of a copyright. The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act was
signed into law by President Clinton in December, 1997, to combat internet
violations of trademarks and copyrights. 

Authorities say Levy admitted that in January 1999 he illegally posted
digitally-recorded movies, musical recordings, and entertainment software
programs on his web site, allowing the general public to download and copy
the copyrighted products. 

"Mr. Levy's case should serve as a notice that the Justice Department has
made prosecution of Internet piracy one of its priorities," said Assistant
Attorney General James Robinson. 
<....>
<<


> >>
> >> Remember, what this law does is give the US government
> >> the power to enforce the law regardless of what the
> >> copyright holder says or what the infringer profits from
> >> making software available.
 ....


     Won't wash. The case you site is not really about software, let alone old
software. It is about someone distributing products (mainly movies) with a
well-defined commercial status and value. Putting this a tad crassly, it is
about $$$.



> >it should be obvious that, in order to prosecute someone for a
> >violation, there needs to be a violation. (If there is not, you just end up
> >wasting resources and looking silly.)
> >
> >     If Apple does not mind that Emulation Net offers their IIgs ROMs for
> >downloading and use with Bernie, then, really, you have no violation.
> 
> But the new regulation wraps itself around the letter of
> the law.  It starts with the premise that the copyright
> holder does NOT want such distribution to happen.  So,
> the government can prosecute if copyright software is
> distributed.

     Law enforcement authorities _can_ try to prosecute anyone for anything.
(This has always been true.)  In general, you want to pursue prosecutions which
matter, which make sense, and which you can win.

     Picking on some archive distributing out of print machine ROMs or game
software is a guaranteed loser, especially when the "victims" (like Activision,
Origin, SSI, ...) turn out to be annoyed that you've cost them a source of free
advertising. (Like, thanks to your "help", their old products really are
worthless.)

     The situation of Apple and Emu Net distribution of IIgs ROMs is very
similar. Maybe Emu Net _could_ be prosecuted; but, you'd be looking at another
wasted effort. Aside from chapping makers of the Bernie emulator and thousands
of Mac users, you'd annoy Apple, Inc.. Easy distribution of IIgs ROMs for
emulators makes their Mac products more attractive. Complaining in court that
Apple should have made their tacit approval public would get you nowhere. You'd
look like a boob AND you would lose.


> 
> Only when a site goes out and asks the copyright
> holder to change the distribution license in writing does
> this change under the current regulation.
>

     So, how are law enforcement authorities supposed to find out what sort of
written/emailed permissions a site has for which pieces of software? How many
man-hours are you going to pour into this effort? (How high is the sky?)  It is
precisely to avoid such a hopeless morass of enforcement problems that copyright
law places the burden for initializing action upon the copyright owner.

 
> So, unless the copyright holder says otherwise in
> writing (as in getting their legal department to draft up
> a "freeware" declaration) distributing the software is
> considered piracy and can be prosecuted by the
> government.

     You a free to "consider" anything you like to be "piracy". Unless you can
demonstrate that the copyright holder would/should reasonably object (as in the
case of unauthorized distribution of digitized movies or some current software
products), you are just wasting time for everyone involved. Clearly, the new law
has no practical application vis-a-vis old out of print software.




Rubywand