Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edu Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Viruses and Copyrights Message-ID: <0009.9002261315.AA04379@ge.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 24 Feb 90 02:40:50 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 53 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu [Ed. A number (!) of people sent in other contributions to the ongoing discussion debating whether or not the AIDS Trojan was a copy protection scheme. While each and every one of these raised valid concerns, in the interest of reducing net volume, I've not included them all in this digest (bulk posting for you Usenet readers...). If anyone feels strongly against this, just let me know. I'll gladly continue posting related messages if it is felt that there are further points to be raised.] I have read (and heartily recommend) the third edition of _How to Copyright Software_ by attorney M.J. Salone and would like to post a few points from it: 1) The United States is a member of the Berne Convention as of March 1, 1989; which means that works published on or after that date do not need a copyight notice (Copyright 1990 John Doe) in order to be entitled to copyright protection. A notice is required to be included in works published before that date or else they will lose protection unless: a) Only a relatively small number of copies of the work exist without the notice. This, of course, will not be the case with viruses since they are designed specifically to replicate themselves. OR b) The copyright is registered with a copyright office within five years of publication AND the notice is included in copies that are not yet in the hands of the public. A virus author isn't likely to register, even if a pseudonym is listed in the copyright notice, since the author's real name is needed in order to actually sue in court for damages. Admitting in court that he/she wrote a virus and waiving a copy of the registration around will be all the evidence needed to convict the author of breaking the law. (Since the confession was made during a civil suit filed by the author I don't think "self-incrimination" regulations would protect the author.) OR c) The author licensed or authorized another party to handle the work and the notice was not included due to the negligence of that party, unless the author did not specifically require the party to include the copyright notice. This probably wouldn't apply to virus writers since other parties could later become witnesses against the author. Most virus writers get pleasure of creating a virus on their own. Because of the length involved I will break up my contribution into a few smaller postings. Next time I'll mention how derivative works come into play; this relates to cases where a person copyrights a disassembly of a virus written by someone else. DISCLAIMER: The above interpretations are mine - I'm not a lawyer! Please do not take this posting to be complete truth!