Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!jhenry From: jhenry@randvax.UUCP (Jim Henry) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga,misc.legal Subject: Re: Unauthorized Sale of Redristributable Software Message-ID: <657@randvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Nov-86 14:19:02 EST Article-I.D.: randvax.657 Posted: Mon Nov 3 14:19:02 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Nov-86 05:23:30 EST References: <8611020148.AA08257@cory.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: jhenry@rand-unix.UUCP (Jim Henry) Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 64 Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:5733 misc.legal:202 I have expanded the distribution to include net.legal since I think this case represents something that many have anticipated for some time and will be of interest and concern to many people outside the amiga area. I was tempted but refrained from including other micro groups. Perhaps we can summarize what develops for those groups a little later. To recap for those who are seeing this for the first time: A company which redistributes PD software for profit is distributing an adaptation of "Hack" for the Amiga. The author of the adaptation, whose name and phone number appear in the software being distributed, has contacted the company and asked them to stop distributing the software. They offered to make a business arrangement but have not done so at this time and the author is, for a number of reasons, not really interested in making a deal. The author has contacted AmigaWorld and asked them to refuse advertisements which feature "Hack". They have said they will continue to accept ads until they are shown a court order stating that the company cannot sell the program. The author's posting asked for suggestions on available remedies and listed those he was considering. I am focusing my remarks on what his legal remedies might be. Some suggestions of other remedies have been made and may well be the best course of action. The first legal step would seem to be establishing that the author does have a legal ownership of the software. This probably means a proper copyright. If he does not have a proper copyright, he may be able to remedy the copyright. There are a number of good books that cover how to secure a valid copyright. I have read and would recommend Remer's Legal Care for Your Software from Nolo Press (about $20). I believe there are a number of pre-suit steps that can be taken to let someone know you are serious about defending your copyright. I also believe that it is correct that you must undertake the defense of your own copyright. I defer to the books or to someone more knowledgeable for details here. The real crux of the legal problem as I see it is that authors who wish to make a true PD contribution, a selfless donation of software to the computing community, have no economic support to use for defense of a copyright. Is a copyright that is not being used to protect an economic position worthless? The pat answer for prevention of profiteering on PD work has been copyright. Now we have an opportunity to see if it will work. How should one defend a copyright given that there is no source of money for the defense? The only legal solution I can think of is the use of small claims court. This minimizes, but does not eliminate, the economic hardship placed on the PD copyright holder. It also prevents the PD profiteer from gaining much advantage from his economically superior position, although he still has an advantage. Would anyone care to comment on whether copyright infringement could be brought to small claims court and how it might be most effectively persued? Disclaimers: These are personal opinions. They are in no way associated with my employer, the Rand Corp. I am not an attorney and nothing contained in this message should be considered as legal advice.