Supreme Court Lets Utilization Rights Stand 341
Moof writes "The United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case between a programmer and his former employer. What makes this news is the fact that the court is letting stand the rulings of the lower courts: Essentially if someone owns a physical copy of software, then they are allowed to modify the code as part of their regular use, no matter what other agreements are in place."
How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen this tactic before... I wouldn't work that way.
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously this wouldn't apply to a shrink-wrapped commercial product, but then, that's not what this is about.
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:2)
I would guess that these "applications" were really just scripts designed to do some specific tasks and that the source was in fact the final product...
but thats just a guess... the article lacks detail
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
I've seen this happen a lot. Someone gets a gig and is careless about leaving source code lying around. Later they figure out that they might be able to sell their code to someone else, or that their relati
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
followed your advice(google), to find who owns the copyright, all the first 5 links I clicked on say the opposite of what you claim.
http://copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.html [copylaw.com]
the fact that under copyright law, authors are presumed to own the copyright in the works they create. The best way to avoid these problems is by having a written agreement in place before any work begins.
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
Normally, stuff you creates when not on the job is yours even if you are an "employee". The only time this
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
Most photographers wanted to retain copyright and provided no options, which is why we didn't give them our business.
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the more important issue is that the court affirmed basic rights of a copy owner. These are under attack from EULAs and other directions. Good to see them recognized.
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
The employee doesn't own this; the corporation does.
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong? (Score:2)
IANAL, but I don't think that happens by default. That's why companies have you sign something that makes it explicit.
I interpret this as good news. It means you should be free to modify stuff you bought to make it do your bidding regardless of what the copyright owner may want you to do with it. This would seem t
You can't generalize it like that (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, there were obviously contractual issues going on here. The news article doesn't say when or where the programmer wrote the programs, or whether he was a consultant or regular employee, or whether they were "work for hire", or what other contracts they had. It doesn't sound like typical work for hire by an employee, because that would normally be owned by the employer and the case would have been a slam-dunk way earlier. So the results of this case are likely to only be useful if you've got a similar contractual agreement, and we don't know what that agreement is because the article doesn't go into that kind of detail.
Re:You can't generalize it like that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wrong? (Score:2)
From TFA, this was filed in 1996, pre-DMCA. Now it would be a DMCA violation, but back then it wouldn't have been.
Re:Wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not an attorney, either, but I have been an employer. The error of the statement above, and a similar line of thought in this comment below [slashdot.org], is that everything in a contract is stuff that isn't already in the law. That's simply not true.
When you create a contract, you do it for a few reasons. One is to address things that aren't already covered adequately elsewhere. Another is to have a single document where all terms are agreed upon, to establish that all parties knew their rights and responsibilities -- even if they are already coded in law. Another is that terms in contracts are often easier to enforce than the same terms coded as law (in terms of suing someone for violation).
When someone hires you to create a work, they own the copyright under the doctrine of "work for hire". The contracts do a couple of things: they spell this out explicitly, and often extend the provision to works you were not directly asked to create.
Work Made for Hire (Score:3, Informative)
IAANAL, but while that certainly may be true and such a doctrine does exist, it is more specific than you seem to believe it is.
In order for a work that is created by a freelance contractor to qualify as a "work made for hire" [copyright.gov] (specific wording of copyright
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:2)
Also, without knowing the details of the case, it is possible that his agreement contract included a clause that he would retain copyright over his work. It's complicated as well by the fact that the company he worked for was not in the business of producing the product in question.
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Remind me never to play any games with you.
I apologize if you are being sarcastic, but you never know.
We don't have sarcasm on Betelgeuse V.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:How does he legally claim copyright? (Score:2)
Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:2)
I wish this ruling did mean that you can edit out EULAs, but IMHO it doesn't. Had Kraus (the developer) coded an EULA screen into the product, or even verbally stated that he was licensing the product to the TitleServ, then the case would have been completely different. The way SCOTUS said that the only changes that can be made to a copyrighted piece of software are changes that are made "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a 18 machine," and used "in
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:2)
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe movies on VHS, but DVDs aren't just the storage of a movie for linear playback. Many commercial DVDs contain some programmed scripts that control how the content is played back. It has the capability to set and read variables and perform conditional branching.
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:3, Insightful)
And what of DVDs where subtitle tracks contain buttons that branch to other video (follow the white rabbit)? And doesn't each VOB know where to go next once its end is reached? That's a goto.
And besides, isn't splitting hairs like that between programs and data like saying you can adapt the word processor but
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:2)
So I can legally break the software protection schemes that the movie and software distributers have put into place on my media?
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:2, Interesting)
Such an interpreter could be used to make digital art. Then, any data file run through it -is- code.
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe somebody else remembers the details better...
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:3, Insightful)
An executable is also a "binary" source code (series of 1s and 0s), then I can transform it into assembly using a disassember.
So if I buy Windows XP, then I can run some of its parts through a disassembler, so I would have a more readable "source code", then I can change it any way I want, bypass any security mechanism, customize it to my liking and so on.
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:3, Insightful)
You do not need to rip music to your computer hard drive as an essential step to utilize the music. You can play it from the CD player.
The article mentioned three criteria, and between the second and third there was the word and which means all three criteria must be met. The third criteria could also be argued against you.
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:3, Insightful)
My Lexus's CD player will not play some DRM encrypted CDs.
My Linux system (and I own nothing but Linux & OS X systems) will not run the proprietary DRM rootkits that enable access to various disks.
For me, in several situations, I cannot use these CD players. I do not own a standalone CD player, except for the changer and 1-shot in my Lexus.
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:2)
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:2)
The case in question pertains _exactly_ to this situation. It doesn't matter about the majority of users; I _own_ one copy of the CD. Ripping of this CD to a non-protected format is _needed_ for me to be able to use it.
Otherwise, the programmer in question could simply have said, "But, your honor, I designed the software for their requirements at the time, and they could have simplyed employeed me, or purchased a different program, at
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the fact that almost 100% of the copy protection cracking/etc is done so the product can be freely distributed that has software/music/movie companies up in arms.
Re:Fair use has been reinforced... (Score:3, Interesting)
err... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:err... (Score:2)
Company owning code? (Score:2)
It's important to read the contract before signing (Score:2)
Don't just read it yourself... (Score:2)
Contradiction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Contradiction (Score:2)
Tests Two and Three (Score:3, Interesting)
This test alone would directly contradict the DMCA, however the modification must also:
"constitute 'an essential step in the utilization' of the program"
and somewhat confusingly
"the software [must be] used 'in no other manner.'"
So what we're looking at here is a case where essential software can be modified, or if the program must be modified before it can be used. Then that's legal.
So my question is, doesn't this mean I can alter/crack/reverse any prog
Re:Tests Two and Three (Score:3, Insightful)
From the first part(physically owning), it seems to refer to owning the media on which the source is on(the server at titlserv)
The second, I am assuming from the article, is implying that they changed the program to do maintance and fix some bugs so it would continue to work.
Here's my take on the third. 'In no other manner'. The program, from the article, was not altered to do something other than the original intent. It was altered to fix bugs. I dont think ripping/cracking/etc t
Re:Contradiction (Score:2)
From TFA, this suit was filed in 1996, pre-DMCA. Now it would be a DMCA violation, but back then it wouldn't have been.
Re:Contradiction (Score:3, Interesting)
Krause left the programs, which were designed to manage client information, on Titleserv's servers when he quit working for the company. He placed locks on the code and stipulated that Titleserv could run--but not alter--the programs, prompting a lawsuit from the company, which claimed it needed to make code tweaks in order to fix bugs and to perform other "routine" functions. Company employees ultimately picked the locks and made the changes they
Re:Precident (Score:4, Insightful)
it's that word "essential" (Score:2)
Re:Contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Contradiction (Score:2, Informative)
This link, posted in another comment, explains it better than the link in the
http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2194 [wistechnology.com]
I stand corrected.
What if you own but have lost a key or media? (Score:2)
Re:Contradiction (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Contradiction (Score:2)
Re:Contradiction (Score:2)
Re:Contradiction (Score:3, Interesting)
The big difference between using DeCSS and this case is that in this case, the owner of the materials figured out for themselves how to break the protections in the code. The DMCA prohibits the distribution of methods for breaking copy protections, but it doesn't prohibit you, an individual, from figuring out how to do it yourself. If you could figure out DeCSS on your own, you are free to use it on your
Even the supreme court :( (Score:5, Funny)
Ok so people can modify code as part of their regular utilizage, and we can uglify the language as part of our reguly utilization of it as well, blah.
Re:Even the supreme court :( (Score:5, Insightful)
legal terms (Score:3, Interesting)
Lawyers have no monopoly on precision in language, despite their claims to the contrary. In fact, a fair amount of legal effort is expended in cleaning up imprecision because Law continues to rely on natural language. That is as it should be, as Law is a humane discipline.
The difficulty of legal jargon stems not from some greater degree of specificity, but rather from too great a reliance upon conventional (legal, precedential) usage. A good 85% of legal usage persists for its hoary connotative value (p
Re:Even the supreme court :( (Score:3, Interesting)
"Utilize" is not the same thing as "use", which is why you see so many grammarians getting their collective panties in a wad over seeing it in print. To "use" something denotes action in conformance with the thing's designed purpose. To "utilize" something means to use in a way that differs from the as-designed purpose. I can't "utilize" a hammer to drive a nail, I can only "use" it. However, I can "utilize" a s
What an idiot! (Score:2)
What an idiot! Who would ever hire Krause again, after this stunt? This is the kind of thing people here yap about doing in Ask Slashdot replies, but what fool actually does it?
Re:What an idiot! (Score:2)
That freaking guy (Score:3, Funny)
Work for Hire? (Score:2)
Translation: What a dick.
If this code was work-for-hire, then this would be completely illegal (and laughable). TFA doesn't go into detail about the agreement, so perhaps this was nothing more than someone trying to force something they knew they couldn't have.
I wou
The big point - who owned the code (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get too excited! (Score:4, Interesting)
AFAIK.
IANAL.
Re:Don't get too excited! (Score:3, Interesting)
If I don't "own" it, and I'm "licensing" it, then I didn't buy it; I'm only renting it. If I'm renting it, then why do I pay sales tax on the (non)purchase? Why does a business pay property tax on its software when it is counted as a capital asset? If Microsoft still owns the software, then Microsoft should pay the property tax. Since they don't, I
Re:Don't get too excited! (Score:4, Interesting)
>marks of Microsoft.
Yet they DO sell it. Writing something else does not change the fact that many times such software are sold, for example in a shop. Doesn't matter if you like to call it something else or write something else. Even more, a third part can't change and revoke a purchase deal between me and the shop.
It is intresting to note also that "licensing" is bassically something non existant in laws regulating sales, leases, and such. Licensing is basically giving a permission to something that is forbidden. In this case, there is no such forbiden thing either. You may also try figuring out what happens if what you say is true if you do NOT agree to the EULA, or prior to even getting a chance to do so, perhaps on the way home from the shop. What is the "status" of the purchase you made then? Non existant? regulated by something you have not yet agreed to? Something else? The thing is, Microsoft DO sell it, they handle it like a sale and it is done like a sale, hence it is a sale. There are a whole bunch of laws regulating sales by the way.
Re:You're buying a CD. (Score:3, Informative)
Uhu, of course, what else would it be? That is exactly what I said.
> As it says, "you own the media on which the software is stored...."
There is no such distinction, the CD *is* the copy of the work in question (software in this case). Since this is the US, you might want to look at the US copyright law and its definition. Especially of a "copy" which is a material object including the media it is stored on. There is no such thing as "the media and the soft
How can you get any more cut and dry? (Score:2)
DMCA Violation! (Score:5, Interesting)
How is this any different than when I remove the DRM from an iTunes song as "an essential step in the utilization" of that song in my other digital music player(s)? Afterall, I own a physical copy of the software - the encoded song.
Maybe that's not the best example but there are lots of others that I'm sure slashdotters can some up with.
How is it that copyright law allows a holder's utilization to trump the agreement they had in place to run but not alter the software, yet pretty much any shrinkwrap/click-thru EULA isn't overruled by this same copyright utilization clause? Article was very light on details. Stinks of corporate favoritism at first glance.
Re:DMCA Violation! (Score:3, Informative)
As other people have pointed out, the alleged violations happened before the DMCA existed. And no law is retroactive (or rather: no law should be retroactive)
Own or license? (Score:5, Interesting)
Section 117(a)(1) provides an affirmative defense against copyright
infringement for anyone who
(i) owns a physical copy of a computer program,
(ii) makes an adaptation "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine," and
(iii) uses it "in no other manner."
So if you 'owned' a physical copy of a Windows word processing app, and you adapted it so that it would run under Linux (machine), and made no other changes, you would not be infringing on someones copyright. But does the law distingish between 'own' and 'license'?
Not likely a DCMA issue (Score:4, Interesting)
-Rick
"Owning a copy" of a computer program (Score:5, Interesting)
This is pretty huge. From the PDF:
(emphasis mine)So suppose I go to CompUSA and buy Photoshop off the shelf. I paid a subtantial sum to Adobe, and I have an undisputed right to possess and use Photoshop permanently. Can I finally legally say that I own a copy of Photoshop?
Definition of the ruling (Score:4, Informative)
The company involved owned the software... outright owned it. You must remember that when you purchase a copy of 99.99999999% of all works, you do not own it, rather you purchased a license for it. Bascially, they are saying you may mod your car or house, because you own it, but they haven't said anything about licensed software.
Re:Definition of the ruling (Score:2, Troll)
Actually that would be wrong. California never adopted the UCITA, so absent any other agreement the transaction's governed by the Uniform Commercial Code. I never signed any agreement to only license the software before the sale, so an over-the-counter sale occurred per the UCC. I own the copy I bought under those rules. I'd also note that the appeals court considered the same logic you're using and explicitly rejected it in their ruling when they discussed whether formal title was needed or not.
He wrote the programs in Clipper (Score:2)
A little bit of his side (Score:4, Interesting)
This quote is from:
HERE [bna.com]
Hoy! An oral agreement.
Legal, binding, but not provable in this case.
Modchips now legal? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would also point out that the PS2 comes with driver CDs. So presumably... you could modify it there, legally.
Right?
Re:Modchips now legal? (Score:2)
Two Issues (Score:2)
Since the company in question broke the "locks" the copyright owner put in place, doesn't that violate the DCMA? Wouldn't the DCMA make their actions criminal (as apposed to just a civil case)?
GPL implication (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now you don't need to agree to the GPL to compile/use/run GPL software, since those things don't trigger copyright protections.
But previous to this, if you modified it at all, copyright law kicks in and you must abide by the GPL, by modifying it, you stepped outside allowed use under "all rights reserved" and are thus you can only operate under the terms of the GPL.
Under this precedent, you can modify it even if it were released under "All Rights Reserved" and thus do not need to comply with the GPL.
This may have serious implications regarding possible GPL V3 clauses on internally modified GPLed software that is used as a network service. If you can modify the software within your rights under "All Rights Reserved" then you may not have to comply with any GPL V3 provision that says you must distribute source for internally modified GPL programs running as network services.
Re:GPL implication (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL v2 only definitely kicks in when you want to distribute copies of
This is HUGE (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't just RTFA--read the decision. In particular, note this conclusion on page 11:
This is the conclusion the court reached after some extensive discussion of what it means to "own" a copy of a piece of software. Key point: the court is ruling on a specific law referring to ownership of a copy of a program, NOT ownership of (or even access to) the source code. The court discusses at length what ownership means--and concludes with the paragraph above. In other words, if you...
...then you--as a matter of law--own a copy of the software.
How huge is this?
The immediate impact of this is to legalize reverse-engineering projects of custom software where the original coder can't or won't produce the source. The more interesting question is whether this legalizes the reverse-engineering of commercially-"licensed" software. On the one hand, this ruling makes it clear that--Microsoft's EULA to the contrary--I own several copies of Microsoft Office. On the other hand, the letter of the law, and the text of this decision, would seem to only permit me to use a disassembler to examine the code and fix bugs. Nothing--repeat--nothing in this decision would permit me to re-distribute that code. That's still very much an issue of copyright infringement.
So can I reverse-engineer my Sony rootkit CD?
Frankly, you shouldn't bother. You should take that rootkit CD back to Wal-Mart and tell them (in as loud a voice as you can muster) that you read "on the Internet that Sony's new CDs install a virus on your computer." But I digress....
Where this is interesting is that it appears to overrule the software industry's assertion that you and I are licenseholders, not owners. This may force a wholesale change in EULAs--where it may become extremely interesting is in the question of the U.S. legal doctrine of First Sale. This says that if you buy something, you own it. And if you own it, you can do anything you want with it--including sell it to somebody else. The licensee/owner distinction that software companies have asserted is intended to prevent the creation of a used software market. EULAs typically include language that prohibits you from selling the software "license" to anyone else without getting permission from the vendor first, or otherwise jumping through hoops. Various vendor "authentication" programs that tie serialized CDs to the MAC addresses of your computer essentially do the same thing--you have to get permission from Microsoft to subsequently "unlock" that software and install it on a different PC. Under the doctrine of First Sale, that's blatantly illegal--IF you own the software.
The bottom line:
You may reasonably conclude that software industry lawyers are going to be working overtime on this.
This doesn't invalidate the GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Hi!
Um, no. Nothing is getting invalidated here. And this doesn't affect GPL'd software, precisely because you (generally) don't pay substantial sums of money for it. (Remember that paying substantial sums of money was one of the criteria for ownership.) Even if it does apply to GPL'd software, so what? Nothing's changed: the whole point of Open Source software, regardless of the license, is that you can examine the source code and ma
What the decision *really* means (Score:4, Interesting)
Firstly, they did not decide the the company had any copyright. The case does not explicitly say, however based on the decision it seems that Krause was a contractor, not an employee, otherwise the company would own the copyright. Either that, or the company had an incompetent lawyer who failed to plead that point, which would have seen the case summarily dismissed much more easily so that the more interesting stuff here would not have needed any discussion.
Based on the description of things from the court, William Krause is not just an arsehole without the slightest bit of integrity in his body, but is a seriously incompetent programmer who should never be allowed to work in the industry again. He wrote the software in such a way that the only way to add customers to it was to modify the software - no input form for this guy, just hard code customer details into the source code. There were other problems of this nature, but that one alone should tell you enough to know he is incompetent and you should avoid him. Then when he and the company parted ways, he told them they could continue to use the software but could not make any modifications to it. Since they could not add customers to it, this effectively meant they could not get any use out of it. That should be enough to make it clear this guy is a complete arsehole.
Now, under 17 USC 117(a)(2), the owner of a copy of the program (that is, not the owner of the copyright, but the owner of the physical copy) legitimately obtained, does not infringe by doing anything necessary as an essential step in using the software. The company made the modifications predominantly for the purpose of adding customers and related things that ought to be ordinary functionality of the program, but could only be done by modifying the code because of the way this incompetent had implemented the thing. They also fixed bugs, which the court found was an "essential" step in using the program.
The company also reformatted the code and gave variables meaningful names. Now that would appear to go beyond essential steps, but it could be argued that this was necessary in order to be able to make the other essential modifications. It does not strike me as going quite as far as "essential", but put yourself in the position of the judge who has before him (or her) such a lowlife plaintiff. You can't change the law, but whether the step is essential or not is a question of fact that the judge can decide - if it's close enough to the fuzzy areas, whose side are you going to go with? As it turned out it seems the plaintiff did not argue that directly, but if he had he would most likely have lost on that point too.
The company also made enhancements - to add stuff like cheque printing. The court found this essential by finding (as a matter of law) that making the program more useful to its owner is a part of utilisation, and modification is an essential step in doing that. This part does create some tension with DMCA provisions - is a game more useful if it does not require you to have its CD in the drive? There is certainly an argument to be made that "No-CD" modifications are legal under this rule. In Australia the tension of such an interpretation with its equivalent of the DMCA is resolved by Stevens v Sony, which would state that the CD checking code does not qualify as a technological protection measure since it does not prevent the copying, only makes the software useless if copied (in the wrong way).
The final point is the most interesting one from a geek point of view. TitleServ also made modifications to make the software work with their new computer system, and more importantly, their new Windows operating system. The court found that copying the software onto the new Windows operating system and modifying it to work with that is protected. How does that help geeks? Think of Wine! Using Microsoft components on Li
Re:this is good to know (Score:2)
Re:this is good to know (Score:2)
Re:this is good to know (Score:2, Funny)