Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Lets Utilization Rights Stand

Posted by Zonk on from the no-discussion dept.

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."

5 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How does he legally claim copyright? by Xentor · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe it was more of a consultant gig, where he sold them a black-box custom solution. They'd own the program, but he'd keep the code. They'd get it a little cheaper, but they'd have to hire him again whenever changes were needed...

    I've seen this tactic before... I wouldn't work that way.

    --
    "The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom
  2. The big point - who owned the code by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 5, Informative

    See this for more details. This issue appears to have been whether the company actually owned the source. The courts said yes.

  3. Re:Fair use has been reinforced... by no_opinion · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wrong, that cannot be concluded from the ruling. If you read the opinion you'll see it is limited to software programs, not music or movies.

  4. Definition of the ruling by acherrington · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think that a lot of people are jumping on the "I can get rid of the copyright protection on my CD/DVD/GAME/Etc...." band wagon. This isn't exactly correct.

    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.

    --


    Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
  5. Re:How does he legally claim copyright? by lantenon · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the wiki on work for hire:
    A "work for hire" (sometimes expressed as "work made for hire") is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally-recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in most countries, if a work is "made for hire", the employer - not the employee - is considered the legal author. The employer may be a corporation or an individual.

    The employee doesn't own this; the corporation does.