Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
> On July 9, 2016 at 5:41 PM Lee Privett wrote: > > > There is an interesting bit on copyright that's list four things relating > to Software. One covers the code as literary, the other covers the output > from code as far as I can ascertain. > > The code is a literary work > The on-screen display could be an artistic work > The soundtracks are musical works > Moving images can be protected as a film and so on > > It goes on to cover non-literal copying of software, full article here. > http://www.inbrief.co.uk/intellectual-property/copyright-protection-for-software/ > > For me there is no question, it's copyrighted unless there evidence that is > not. Qliberator is a case in point, it's copyright protected until both > authors state it can be public domain. > > Now it is interesting for a discussion perspective about non-literal > copying if a protected programme is hacked and the software no longer has > its anti copying protection then effectively it's not the same software > anymore. > I am fairly certain that just bypassing the copy protection would fail the substantial parts test (and any of hte other tests) as it would be easy to prove on a byte by byte comparison that there were only very limited changes to the original code. Arguably it would be harder to prove that some of my MKII software breached copyright under these rules (had I not originally obtained permission) - because the original code can no longer easily be proven - eg, substantial changes to D-Day and War In the East, which were originally SuperBASIC programs, then I re-wrote large sections in native machine code, added a large amount of my own code and then compiled them in Turbo - although here there is the issue of access to sources could easily be proven, as the sources (SuperBASIC) were provided in the originals. I am not sure whether Nemesis and possibly some of the other Talent adventures would be viewed in this light, as they were written in Quill, so had to be de-compiled, changed and then re-compiled as a Q-liberated program - leaving very little to compare apart from the actual text on screen. That said, both myself and Richard Alexander (when my programs were published by CGH Services) always felt that it was only fair to pay royalties on sales to the original copyright holders, or to offer my version as an upgrade to people who proved they had the original. Rich Mellor RWAP Software www.rwapsoftware.co.uk www.sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
There is an interesting bit on copyright that's list four things relating to Software. One covers the code as literary, the other covers the output from code as far as I can ascertain. The code is a literary work The on-screen display could be an artistic work The soundtracks are musical works Moving images can be protected as a film and so on It goes on to cover non-literal copying of software, full article here. http://www.inbrief.co.uk/intellectual-property/copyright-protection-for-software/ For me there is no question, it's copyrighted unless there evidence that is not. Qliberator is a case in point, it's copyright protected until both authors state it can be public domain. Now it is interesting for a discussion perspective about non-literal copying if a protected programme is hacked and the software no longer has its anti copying protection then effectively it's not the same software anymore. On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 at 12:51, Colin McKay wrote: > When a member of the Bristol Group, I remember being told that any program > lodged in the QL system automatically became public domain. Can that be > confirmed? > > Whilst searching the web, one site virtually stated that anything a person > produces is automatically subject to copyright. Another site stated that > copyrights can be registered. Do any of the QL programs expressly claim > copyright? Compare the situation with that of books, many display the word > 'copyright' on an introductory page. > > Entering the sordid topic of coin, it is difficult to imagine that it would > profit any originator of a QL program to seek recompense from the courts > for > infringement of copyright. Consider the value of past sales, future > possible > sales, and legal costs. The case would have to be based on the miss-selling > of a number of programs to create a sufficiently large claim. > > I have used Text87 almost since its availability. In those far back days I > spoke to a member of the firm which produced it, and he explained some of > its facilities. Later my memory failed, and I could not reconstruct the > steps from the manual. From this, I suggest that whilst the program is very > good, its value is diminished from the fact that its manual is seriously > deficient. I suspect that situation could exist for many QL programs. They > are written by insiders for the use of insiders. > > As regards the QL dying, to me the main factor for this is the inability of > the QL community to create a system of durable software which would enable > the purchaser of a machine (emulator) to instantly have a day-to-day > coherent usable collection of programs not prone to enthusiasts > ideosyncrasies. > > Colin > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ql-Users [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of > ql-users-requ...@lists.q-v-d.com > Sent: 09 July 2016 10:39 > To: ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com > Subject: Ql-Users Digest, Vol 149, Issue 17 > > Send Ql-Users mailing list submissions to > ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.q-v-d.com/listinfo.cgi/ql-users-q-v-d.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ql-users-requ...@lists.q-v-d.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ql-users-ow...@lists.q-v-d.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Ql-Users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Withdrawal of my personal SoftwarePreservation > Project > (Norman Dunbar) >2. Re: Withdrawal of my personalSoftware > Preservation > Project > (Norman Dunbar) >3. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project > (Derek Stewart) >4. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project > (Richard Howe) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:09:15 +0100 > From: Norman Dunbar > To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com > Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software > PreservationProject > Message-ID: <9e7f06d5-7bb9-400c-a399-ad5524b62...@dunbar-it.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Still a verb. It's an action. > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe > > I wish I could get out of the sun! But it's too sunny and way to hot for a > Jock like me! > > > Cheers, > Norm. > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:11:35 +0100 > From: Norman Dunbar > To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com > Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of mypersonalSoftware > PreservationProject > Message-ID: <3860c8a4-f79d-4470-bc70-67312f05c...@dunbar-it.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Whoops! > > To infringe, verb. > An infringement noun. > Apologies. > > Cheers,
Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
> On July 9, 2016 at 4:26 PM Wolf wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Entering the sordid topic of coin, it is difficult to imagine that it would > > profit any originator of a QL program to seek recompense from the courts for > > infringement of copyright. Consider the value of past sales, future possible > > sales, and legal costs. The case would have to be based on the miss-selling > > of a number of programs to create a sufficiently large claim. > > Think: > > - statutory damages > - punitive damages > > depending on where you sue... > > OK, 'nuff said on that subject. > Wolfgang > ___ > QL-Users Mailing List Copyright exists as soon as someone creates an item. They are the owner of the rights to that item - be it a physical item, some program code, a painting or even a turn of phrase (this is why it has been generally referred to in legislation as intellectual property). Many people originally proved copyright by posting a copy of an item to themselves, so that it is dated by a third party in a sealed envelope - just in case they ever needed to prove that they created the item before someone else. There used to be some countries which demanded registration of copyright but since countries signed up to the Berne convention, they all agreed to do away with this, but most countries retain the ability to voluntarily register copyright if you wish (similar to posting a copy to yourself). As for ever bringing court action - most countries will actually prosecute the person on your behalf, as it is seen as a criminal offence under international law; so there is no question of cost for the copyright holder. Does QL software have copyright messages? The answer is a resounding YES - out of all the stuff I have preserved, there is probably less than 5% which has no statement in the code as to copyright, or who wrote the program. It is generally clearly stipulated in the boot program, loading screen, manual or the code itself. As to what you do with the stuff which has nothing to indicate copyright - who knows what the intention of the author was It could have been donated to the Quanta library, in which case, the terms of their constitution stipulate that the library was available to members only. It could have been a program which appeared in QL World / QL User - which paid for the program listings, so the rights may well have been transferred to the magazine publisher (all depending on the terms of the submission and who the publisher was at the time). Rich Mellor RWAP Software www.rwapsoftware.co.uk www.sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
Hi, Entering the sordid topic of coin, it is difficult to imagine that it would profit any originator of a QL program to seek recompense from the courts for infringement of copyright. Consider the value of past sales, future possible sales, and legal costs. The case would have to be based on the miss-selling of a number of programs to create a sufficiently large claim. Think: - statutory damages - punitive damages depending on where you sue... OK, 'nuff said on that subject. Wolfgang ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
Hi Colin, When a member of the Bristol Group, I remember being told that any program lodged in the QL system automatically became public domain. Can that be confirmed? No it can't. Very broadly speaking, if someone writes a piece of software, then someone has a copyright to it - automatically. (and, yes I'm aware that there are hems and haws and provided this and maybe that with the above sentence, but as a general statement it is true.) WOlfgang ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
When a member of the Bristol Group, I remember being told that any program lodged in the QL system automatically became public domain. Can that be confirmed? Define "QL system"? Don't understand that, unless what they meant was that as soon as you made a program available in some way, widespread piracy meant it was inevitable that it would quickly become commonly copied by one and all. Not a remark about the legal situation, but a scenario which you could perhaps see happening in practice. Dilwyn - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4627/12585 - Release Date: 07/09/16 ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
Hi Colin, If I read this correctly, you say any software installed on a QL system is public domain. That does sound silly, do you include SMSQ/E... How many copies of SMSQ/E was copied! Regards DerekOn 9 Jul 2016 12:51, Colin McKay wrote: > > When a member of the Bristol Group, I remember being told that any program > lodged in the QL system automatically became public domain. Can that be > confirmed? > > Whilst searching the web, one site virtually stated that anything a person > produces is automatically subject to copyright. Another site stated that > copyrights can be registered. Do any of the QL programs expressly claim > copyright? Compare the situation with that of books, many display the word > 'copyright' on an introductory page. > > Entering the sordid topic of coin, it is difficult to imagine that it would > profit any originator of a QL program to seek recompense from the courts for > infringement of copyright. Consider the value of past sales, future possible > sales, and legal costs. The case would have to be based on the miss-selling > of a number of programs to create a sufficiently large claim. > > I have used Text87 almost since its availability. In those far back days I > spoke to a member of the firm which produced it, and he explained some of > its facilities. Later my memory failed, and I could not reconstruct the > steps from the manual. From this, I suggest that whilst the program is very > good, its value is diminished from the fact that its manual is seriously > deficient. I suspect that situation could exist for many QL programs. They > are written by insiders for the use of insiders. > > As regards the QL dying, to me the main factor for this is the inability of > the QL community to create a system of durable software which would enable > the purchaser of a machine (emulator) to instantly have a day-to-day > coherent usable collection of programs not prone to enthusiasts > ideosyncrasies. > > Colin > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ql-Users [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of > ql-users-requ...@lists.q-v-d.com > Sent: 09 July 2016 10:39 > To: ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com > Subject: Ql-Users Digest, Vol 149, Issue 17 > > Send Ql-Users mailing list submissions to > ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.q-v-d.com/listinfo.cgi/ql-users-q-v-d.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ql-users-requ...@lists.q-v-d.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ql-users-ow...@lists.q-v-d.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Ql-Users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation > Project > (Norman Dunbar) > 2. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation > Project > (Norman Dunbar) > 3. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project > (Derek Stewart) > 4. Re: Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project > (Richard Howe) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:09:15 +0100 > From: Norman Dunbar > To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com > Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software > Preservation Project > Message-ID: <9e7f06d5-7bb9-400c-a399-ad5524b62...@dunbar-it.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Still a verb. It's an action. > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe > > I wish I could get out of the sun! But it's too sunny and way to hot for a > Jock like me! > > > Cheers, > Norm. > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:11:35 +0100 > From: Norman Dunbar > To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com > Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software > Preservation Project > Message-ID: <3860c8a4-f79d-4470-bc70-67312f05c...@dunbar-it.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Whoops! > > To infringe, verb. > An infringement noun. > Apologies. > > Cheers, > Norm. > > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 08:41:13 +0100 > From: Derek Stewart > To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com > Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software > Preservation Project > Message-ID: <5780aa99.9000...@q40.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi Richard, > > I bought a copy of Master Spy in 1989 from TK Computaware, aftwer a review > in QL Wolrd. > > I must say that Master Spy was one of best QL software I have ever had. > I am sorry for not buying it direct from you. > > Regards, > > Derek > > On 07/07/16 16:16, Richard Howe wrote: > > Hi > >
Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
Yes, why Fred Toussi does not make this program freeware and why he does not make the way public, how T87 saves its documents... I will never understand. Noone sells it today, nor does anyone develops driver for it. Is this the way? Surely not. Cheers...Ralf - Original Message - From: "Colin McKay" I have used Text87 almost since its availability. In those far back days I spoke to a member of the firm which produced it, and he explained some of its facilities. Later my memory failed, and I could not reconstruct the steps from the manual. From this, I suggest that whilst the program is very good, its value is diminished from the fact that its manual is seriously deficient. I suspect that situation could exist for many QL programs. They are written by insiders for the use of insiders. ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
Colin McKay wrote: > As regards the QL dying, to me the main factor for this is the inability of > the QL community to create a system of durable software which would enable > the purchaser of a machine (emulator) to instantly have a day-to-day > coherent usable collection of programs not prone to enthusiasts > ideosyncrasies. For me the main factor is: Who is writing QL software at all? Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [Ql-Users] Copyright
The only slight difference on copyright for software purposes has been to allow a backup copy for personal use. There are also rules applicable as to the length of time copyright is active which have bearing. Basically it is life or lives in being plus 70 years. However, if the authorship of the work is unknown it is 50 years from date of publication. If a Company owns the copyright, then it is 70 years from the end of the business. Alas that is it - copyright law is something that does not get changed too often, because of it being subject to the Berne treaty - ie it is an international law, and therefore at least a majority of countries would need to agree to any changes Rich > On July 7, 2016 at 9:21 PM Colin McKay > wrote: > > > Has copyright in the electronic sense been investigated? > > An author publishes an article, and an individual makes one copy of it for > only his use. That is allowable, but there could be qualifications of the > situation. > > > > Colin McKay > > > > > > ___ > QL-Users Mailing List Rich Mellor RWAP Software www.rwapsoftware.co.uk www.sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List