Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!thad From: thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Used DPAINT [I & II] for sale Message-ID: <17050@cup.portal.com> Date: 12 Apr 89 05:22:26 GMT References: <16386@oberon.USC.EDU> <6789@ecsvax.UUCP> <16404@oberon.USC.EDU> <16958@cup.portal.com> <16459@oberon.USC.EDU> Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 68 Sigh. Though I've had no love of EA (witness Perry's and my vitriolic comments directed towards EA on The WELL in years past), I will stand up for EA's rights in this recent discussion. At least Marco pledged further silence in the matter of his (in my opinion) unethical and illegal trafficking of "old" software that he subsequently "upgraded" (in re his attempts to sell off copies of DPaint I and DPaint II which he recently upgraded to DPaint III). But ignoring the matter won't cause it to "go away." The EA software in question (the Deluxe Paint series) is clearly copyrighted and protected by US Federal law. The last page of the DP-II manual states: "SOFTWARE (c) 1986 ELECTRONIC ARTS" True, there is NO reference to a software license in either the DP-I or DP-II documentation (my copy of DP-III hasn't arrived yet :-), but Federal copyright and case law clearly grant the exclusive statutory rights of authors, composers, playwrights, artists, programmers, publishers, and distributors to publish, dispose and control their works for (in the USA) 28 years, with privilege of one renewal for an additional 28 years. Additionally, though not germane to the topic at hand, common-law property rights continue in effect until publication with or without copyright. Harping on my use of the word "copy(ies)" and then citing Manx' license (which uses the same word) in defense is a non sequitur. "Copy" is a generic term pertaining to the instance at hand. In fact, the only "original" is that in the author's possession. You want some background? Consider the state of California's attempts (over the past 17 years) to tax software companies on their software "inventory" (much like the city of Los Angeles has done). Hey, HOW many copies of my program DO I have? Do the blank disks (or tapes) in my inventory EACH represent one (potential) "copy" of my $250 program? Sheesh. EA's failure to clearly state the (implied) license nature of their software is NOT grounds to rip them (EA) off (as would be done by selling previously- upgraded copies of DPaint-I and DPaint-II). Software is presently considered to be intellectual (NOT tangible) property (re: a car being tangible property (a material object) vs. a program being intangible property (an abstract idea)). The fact that software is distributed on tangible media such as disk(s) or tape(s) does NOT alter the nature or legal status of software. Selling the (erased) media upon which the original software existed is OK; attempting to sell the original disks with the software intact after having upgraded (the software (as a courtesy by EA to early purchasers)) to newer copies is NOT OK. To put things into perspective, how would Marco feel if I choose to upgrade my A-Talk-Plus to A-Talk-III for $25 (or whatever the fee is), then I sell my "original" copies of A-Talk and A-Talk-Plus for $20 and $40 respectively? :-) I sure wouldn't brag about paying $250/hour for such advice as Marco claims to receive from his counsel. SUMMARY: Software upgrades (at a discounted price) are a courtesy and NOT an occasion to profiteer. STATEMENT: this is NOT an attack (perceived or otherwise) on Marco. I'm simply attempting to clarify some (otherwise) obscure points of law as they apply to software (and the disposal thereof), points that arose from Marco's "offer to sell." Hopefully, discussion of these matters will benefit all. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]