Copyright infringement of software
1 Existing and proposed laws
2 Notable exceptions
3 The effects of copyright infringement on digital culture
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
[edit]Existing and proposed laws
Main articles: Copyright infringement and History of copyright law
Demonstration in Sweden in support of software piracy, 2006.
The Pirate Bay logo, a retaliation to the stereotypical image of software piracy
In most developing countries, the term of a copyright never exceeds any useful life a program may have.[citation needed] The oldest legacy computer systems used today are still less than 40 years old. The copyright on them will not expire in the United States and Europe until about 2030. Changes, operating systems, network environments and user expectations usually make programs obsolete much faster than in 70 years (the current copyright length).
Under the proposed US Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), a controversial model law that has been adopted in Virginia and Maryland, software manufacturers are granted broad rights to shut down unauthorized software copiers without court intervention similar to some of the provisions found in Title II of the US DMCA, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which allows copyright holders to demand that an online service provider (OSP) expeditiously block access to infringing materials. If the OSP complies, it is granted a safe harbor, providing it immunity from infringement claims. If it doesn't comply, it doesn't become liable, but may instead rely on the protection of the Communications Decency Act.
Title I of the US DMCA, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has provisions that prevent persons from "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work". Thus if a software manufacturer has some kind of software, dongle or password access device installed in the software any attempt to bypass such a copy protection scheme may be actionable — though the US Copyright Office is currently reviewing anticircumvention rulemaking under DMCA — anticircumvention exemptions that have been in place under the DMCA include those in software designed to filter websites that are generally seen to be inefficient (child safety and public library website filtering software) and the circumvention of copy protection mechanisms that have malfunctioned, have caused the software to become inoperable or which are no longer supported by their manufacturers.
Most commercially exploited proprietary software is developed in the United States and Europe, hence for those located in economically disadvantaged economies it can be prohibitively expensive to pay for all the end user licenses for those products rather than to purchase just one license and then copy the software without paying any additional licensing fees. Some critics in the developing countries of the world see this as an indirect technology transfer tax on their country preventing technological advancement and they use this type of argument when refusing to accept the copyright laws that are in force in most technologically advanced countries. This idea is often applied to patent laws as well.
[edit]Notable exceptions
France distanced itself from other Copyright enforcers by issuing a ruling that entitled bank secrecy to infringe Copyright. Under the ruling issued by the General Prosecutor of Paris, bank FINAMA (100% held by French insurer GROUPAMA) was able to scupper a $200 million software piracy trial by just invoking bank secrecy.[1]
[edit]The effects of copyright infringement on digital culture
Peer to peer (P2P) file sharing technologies have lowered the threshold of knowledge needed to acquire massive amounts of information. Large networks have been created which are dedicated to share knowledge, but these same networks can be used to infringe copyright. Identifying infringing use can be difficult, since the users can modify the name and content of material being shared.
Rise of quality in free alternative software also helps to lower the use of copied software worldwide. Illegally copying software is seen by some software producers as a "lesser evil" than actually buying or illegally copying a competitor's software. Jeff Raikes, a Microsoft executive, stated that "If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." He also added [2] that "We understand that in the long run the fundamental asset is the installed base of people who are using our products. What you hope to do over time is convert them to licensing the software."
Traian Băsescu, the president of Romania, stated that "piracy helped the young generation discover computers. It set off the development of the IT industry in Romania."[3]
Microsoft admits that piracy of its Windows operating system has helped give it huge market share in China that will boost its revenues when these users "go legit." Bill Gates said, "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."[4] He has also said in reference to China:
As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.
—Bill Gates[5]
Surveys indicate that software piracy is generally regarded as an issue of low moral intensity.[6]
[edit]See also
Abandonware
Anti-copyright
Australian copyright law
Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc.
Copyleft
Dongle
Federation Against Software Theft
File sharing
iLok Smart Key
Matrix Software License Protection System
Product activation
Software copyright
Warez
Windows Genuine Advantage
[edit]References
International Journal of Research in Marketing, December 2003 (Volume 20, No. 4), "How many pirates should a software firm tolerate?"
Journal of Business, 2004, (Volume 77, No. 2),“Software Piracy: Market penetration in the Presence of Network Externalities”
Albacea, E., Payongayong M. T. and A. Pinpin (2005) Computer Ethics.UPOU Los Baños Philippines. p 78.
G.Frederick, (2007) Software Piracy: Some Facts, Figures, and Issues.
^ "GROUPAMA cooking evidences to shut-down massive Piracy case". TWD Industries AG.
^ http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2007/03/12/microsoft-executive-pirating-software-choose-microsoft
^ Nathan Davis. Thanks for letting us pirate. 5 February 2007.
^ The Economist. Piracy: Look for the Silver Lining (July 19th-25th, 2008 ed.). pp. 23
^ "Gates, Buffett a bit bearish". CNET. July 2, 1998.
^ Logsdon, Jeanne M.; Thompson, Judith Kenner; Reid, Richard A. (November, 1994). "Software piracy: Is it related to level of moral judgment?". Journal of Business Ethics (Journal of Business Ethics) 13 (11): 849. doi:10.1007/BF00871698. ISSN 0167-4544
Copyright infringement of software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 Existing and proposed laws
2 Notable exceptions
3 The effects of copyright infringement on digital culture
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
[edit]Existing and proposed laws
Main articles: Copyright infringement and History of copyright law
Demonstration in Sweden in support of software piracy, 2006.
The Pirate Bay logo, a retaliation to the stereotypical image of software piracy
In most developing countries, the term of a copyright never exceeds any useful life a program may have.[citation needed] The oldest legacy computer systems used today are still less than 40 years old. The copyright on them will not expire in the United States and Europe until about 2030. Changes, operating systems, network environments and user expectations usually make programs obsolete much faster than in 70 years (the current copyright length).
Under the proposed US Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), a controversial model law that has been adopted in Virginia and Maryland, software manufacturers are granted broad rights to shut down unauthorized software copiers without court intervention similar to some of the provisions found in Title II of the US DMCA, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which allows copyright holders to demand that an online service provider (OSP) expeditiously block access to infringing materials. If the OSP complies, it is granted a safe harbor, providing it immunity from infringement claims. If it doesn't comply, it doesn't become liable, but may instead rely on the protection of the Communications Decency Act.
Title I of the US DMCA, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has provisions that prevent persons from "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work". Thus if a software manufacturer has some kind of software, dongle or password access device installed in the software any attempt to bypass such a copy protection scheme may be actionable — though the US Copyright Office is currently reviewing anticircumvention rulemaking under DMCA — anticircumvention exemptions that have been in place under the DMCA include those in software designed to filter websites that are generally seen to be inefficient (child safety and public library website filtering software) and the circumvention of copy protection mechanisms that have malfunctioned, have caused the software to become inoperable or which are no longer supported by their manufacturers.
Most commercially exploited proprietary software is developed in the United States and Europe, hence for those located in economically disadvantaged economies it can be prohibitively expensive to pay for all the end user licenses for those products rather than to purchase just one license and then copy the software without paying any additional licensing fees. Some critics in the developing countries of the world see this as an indirect technology transfer tax on their country preventing technological advancement and they use this type of argument when refusing to accept the copyright laws that are in force in most technologically advanced countries. This idea is often applied to patent laws as well.
[edit]Notable exceptions
France distanced itself from other Copyright enforcers by issuing a ruling that entitled bank secrecy to infringe Copyright. Under the ruling issued by the General Prosecutor of Paris, bank FINAMA (100% held by French insurer GROUPAMA) was able to scupper a $200 million software piracy trial by just invoking bank secrecy.[1]
[edit]The effects of copyright infringement on digital culture
Peer to peer (P2P) file sharing technologies have lowered the threshold of knowledge needed to acquire massive amounts of information. Large networks have been created which are dedicated to share knowledge, but these same networks can be used to infringe copyright. Identifying infringing use can be difficult, since the users can modify the name and content of material being shared.
Rise of quality in free alternative software also helps to lower the use of copied software worldwide. Illegally copying software is seen by some software producers as a "lesser evil" than actually buying or illegally copying a competitor's software. Jeff Raikes, a Microsoft executive, stated that "If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." He also added [2] that "We understand that in the long run the fundamental asset is the installed base of people who are using our products. What you hope to do over time is convert them to licensing the software."
Traian Băsescu, the president of Romania, stated that "piracy helped the young generation discover computers. It set off the development of the IT industry in Romania."[3]
Microsoft admits that piracy of its Windows operating system has helped give it huge market share in China that will boost its revenues when these users "go legit." Bill Gates said, "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."[4] He has also said in reference to China:
As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.
—Bill Gates[5]
Surveys indicate that software piracy is generally regarded as an issue of low moral intensity.[6]
[edit]See also
Abandonware
Anti-copyright
Australian copyright law
Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc.
Copyleft
Dongle
Federation Against Software Theft
File sharing
iLok Smart Key
Matrix Software License Protection System
Product activation
Software copyright
Warez
Windows Genuine Advantage
[edit]References
International Journal of Research in Marketing, December 2003 (Volume 20, No. 4), "How many pirates should a software firm tolerate?"
Journal of Business, 2004, (Volume 77, No. 2),“Software Piracy: Market penetration in the Presence of Network Externalities”
Albacea, E., Payongayong M. T. and A. Pinpin (2005) Computer Ethics.UPOU Los Baños Philippines. p 78.
G.Frederick, (2007) Software Piracy: Some Facts, Figures, and Issues.
^ "GROUPAMA cooking evidences to shut-down massive Piracy case". TWD Industries AG.
^ http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2007/03/12/microsoft-executive-pirating-software-choose-microsoft
^ Nathan Davis. Thanks for letting us pirate. 5 February 2007.
^ The Economist. Piracy: Look for the Silver Lining (July 19th-25th, 2008 ed.). pp. 23
^ "Gates, Buffett a bit bearish". CNET. July 2, 1998.
^ Logsdon, Jeanne M.; Thompson, Judith Kenner; Reid, Richard A. (November, 1994). "Software piracy: Is it related to level of moral judgment?". Journal of Business Ethics (Journal of Business Ethics) 13 (11): 849. doi:10.1007/BF00871698. ISSN 0167-4544
Register your author's rights and get the full juridical protection.
Copyright Registration will cost - $ 20
Public offer - read carefully before registration!
Recent Publications
Terms of use
Article 1. Contracting parties.
1. The Parties of this Public Offer (paid service agreement), hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement” or “Offer”, are, as follows:
1. The Parties of this Public Offer (paid service agreement), hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement” or “Offer”, are, as follows:
a) Executor is a person, who makes this Offer and who executes this Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions: Solcity World Investment and Development; and
b) Customer is a person, who accepts this Offer and who is the author of any publication.
Article 2. Acceptance.
1. The Customer shall accept this Offer in case of and after the following activities:
a) fill in and send to the Executor an application in electronic format in the form established by this Agreement and posted on the Executor’s official website; and
b) provide the author’s abstract specifying what material was created by the author; and
c) provide a list of all key words (tags) that enable finding the location of the author’s abstract of the Customer on the Executor’s website; and
d) post (“upload”) the material itself on the Executor’s official website; and
e) pay for the Executor’s services in the amount and following the procedure set forth by this Agreement.
2. The Executor shall verify the Customer’s data and post the information about the Customer and his/her work of authorship on SciReg.org in Internet. From this moment on, the Customer shall be considered as an acceptor of this Offer and a Party to this Agreement.
3. The Executor shall be entitled, without giving any reasons, to refuse the Customer to accept this Offer and the Customer unconditionally, entirely and irrevocably agrees with this provision.
Article 3. Scope of the Agreement.
1. The Executor hereof shall render services on establishing, formation and maintenance of the Copyright register in electronic format on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
2. The Executor hereof shall render to the Customer paid services on posting (publishing) of information about the applicant as the author of the material under the terms and in accordance with this Agreement.
3. The work of authorship shall be understood by the Parties as a subject matter of copyright established by the Civil Code or other laws of the Author’s Country of domicile.
4. The Executor shall publish information (data), hereinafter referred to as the “summary”, about the applicant as the author of the material in the Register posted on the Executor’s official website in Internet under the terms set forth by this Agreement.
5. The Executor shall be entitled, at his own discretion and without coordination with the Customer, to assign his obligations for execution of this Agreement to any third party, and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision.
Article 4. Register.
1. The Register shall be an ordered and standardized register containing a summary of the Customer: Author’s information, including co-authors, name of the work of authorship, publication date, author’s abstract revealing the content of the work of authorship and its unique character, as well as a unique number of posting in the Register assigned to the author and his/her material automatically by the Executor, key words (tags) that enable any person to find information about the author and his/her publication posted in the Register on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
2. The author’s abstract shall be a brief description of the author’s publication designating its unique character and showing that the Customer is its author.
3. The Register shall be maintained in electronic form on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
4. Information about the author, work of authorship and other information required by the rules for information posting in the Register, set forth by the Executor, except for the unique number, shall be posted by the Customer individually on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
5. Both the Register and the official website shall be the Executor’s property.
6. Any and all information posted by the Customer in the Register in accordance with the terms set forth by this Agreement shall be the Executor’s property. Hereby, the Customer shall not transfer copyright for his/her work of authorship to the Executor.
7. The rules for maintenance of the Register, its execution, posting of any details (information) in it shall constitute Appendix 1 to this Agreement forming an integral part hereof. The rules shall be issued exclusively by the Executor. The Executor, without coordination with the Customer and the Customer’s consent, shall have the right to make any changes in and/or amendment to the Register maintenance rules and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision. The Register maintenance rules shall be unconditionally mandatory for the Customer.
Article 5. Obligations of the Parties.
1. The Parties hereto shall (hereby shall be obliged to) unconditionally, voluntarily, conscientiously, and accurately follow all provisions of this Agreement, as well as any and all supplements, amendments and/or alterations hereto made under the terms set forth by this Agreement.
2. The Customer shall pay for the Executor’s services following the procedure and in the amount established by this Agreement.
3. The Customer, in contemplation of his/her death, shall be obliged to bind defendants to the terms of this Agreement.
4. If the Customer’s copyright is assigned to a third party, he/she shall be obliged to bind such third party to his/her obligations hereunder.
5. The Customer shall have an exclusive right to refer, in any form, to his/her summary (synopsis, author’s abstract) posted in the Register on the Executor’s official website in Internet in case of complete and fair execution of his/her obligations under this Agreement.
Article 6. Payment for the Executor’s services. Agreement price.
1. The Customer shall pay for the Executor’s services following the procedure and in the amount established by the provisions of this Article.
2. The price for one posting by the applicant of one his/her summary in the Register shall be 20 (twenty) US Dollars – price of this Agreement.
3. The procedure for paying the amount set forth by this Article of the Agreement shall be determined in Appendix 1 to this Agreement.
4. The applicant shall pay the amount stated in para 2 of this Article (pay for the Executor’s service) to the Executor at the time of registration.
5. The amounts paid hereunder by the Customer to the Executor shall be nonreturnable.
6. Each Party shall individually pay any and all own taxes, duties and/or fees established by the legislation of the Party in connection with execution of the terms hereof by the Party. Neither party shall be a fiscal agent of the other Party.
Article 7. Withdrawal from the Agreement.
1. The Customer shall be entitled to withdraw from execution of this Agreement in the form of non-payment of a next settlement set forth by this Agreement.
2. The Executor shall have the right, including in his sole discretion, to withdraw from execution of this Agreement without reimbursement to the Customer of any expenses and/or losses (damages), as well as without payment of any penalty and/or penalty fee and/or any other forfeit, and the Customer unconditionally and entirely agrees with this provision, in the following case (cases):
a) failure to pay by the Customer for the services to the Executor in the amount and under the terms set forth by this Agreement; and/or
b) provision of false information by the Customer; and/or
c) any other technical reasons.
Article 8. Information sharing.
1. Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, the Parties hereto may share information, and this information for the Parties shall be regarded as official, by phone, fax, sms, Skype, via e-mail and/or in writing (in hard copy).
2. The Parties hereto may share documents and these documents shall be legally effective for the Parties and considered properly received by the Parties by fax, Skype, via e-mail, in writing in hard copy, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party via e-mail shall be accepted by the Parties. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party by fax shall be accepted by the Parties. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party via Skype shall be accepted by the Parties.
3. Along with the afore-mentioned, the Parties may have electronic documentary interchange and affix their electronic digital signatures (EDS) on any and all documents.
Article 9. Arbitration.
1. All disputes arising between the Parties in relation to interpretation of this Agreement and/or execution of this Agreement shall be settled by the Parties in the form of bilateral negotiations.
2. If the Parties fail to reach a compromise during negotiations, they shall settle their dispute in the arbitration court (arbitration) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of British Virgin Islands.
3. As the rules of procedural law based on which the Parties shall settle their dispute, the Parties shall accept the rules of arbitration court (arbitration) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of British Virgin Islands.
4. As the rules of substantive law based on which the Parties settle their dispute, the Parties shall accept this Agreement and rules of international agreements (conventions) regulating copyright legal relationship.
Article 10. Other terms and conditions.
1. This Agreement is made in written and electronic form, in one counterpart, which:
a) Agreement in writing is kept in the Executor’s office, and
b) posted in electronic form on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
2. Alteration, amendments and/or supplements to this Agreement shall be made in written and electronic form by the Executor individually, in a single hard counterpart and a single electronic counterpart posted on the official website in Internet and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision.
3. Changes in this Agreement shall be made by the Executor as a new version of the Agreement.
4. If the Customer disagrees with new terms and conditions, he/she shall have a right to withdraw from the Agreement following the procedure and terms set forth by this Agreement.
