Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Lets Utilization Rights Stand
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."
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Isn't this a direct contradiction of the DMCA? What if I buy a physical copy of a game that has copy protection and modify that copy protection? Did the lower court make a bad ruling? Or is it only ok if you are not circumventing a copy protection measure?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
The difference between this software and say MS Office is that you don't "own" MS office, you have a license to use it but you do not have property rights on it.
AFAIK.
IANAL.
Error: Sig not found.
How is this any different than when I remove the DRM from an iTunes song as "an essential step in the utilization" of that song in my other digital music player(s)? Afterall, I own a physical copy of the software - the encoded song.
Maybe that's not the best example but there are lots of others that I'm sure slashdotters can some up with.
How is it that copyright law allows a holder's utilization to trump the agreement they had in place to run but not alter the software, yet pretty much any shrinkwrap/click-thru EULA isn't overruled by this same copyright utilization clause? Article was very light on details. Stinks of corporate favoritism at first glance.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
From the ruling:
Section 117(a)(1) provides an affirmative defense against copyright
infringement for anyone who
(i) owns a physical copy of a computer program,
(ii) makes an adaptation "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine," and
(iii) uses it "in no other manner."
So if you 'owned' a physical copy of a Windows word processing app, and you adapted it so that it would run under Linux (machine), and made no other changes, you would not be infringing on someones copyright. But does the law distingish between 'own' and 'license'?
He most likely ran the binaries through an obfuscator to make sure that any hard coded strings were appropriatly mangled and the code was not easily recoverable. That way, the code is "protected" but not encrypted and this would not fall under the DCMA's jurisdiction.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
This is pretty huge. From the PDF:
(emphasis mine)So suppose I go to CompUSA and buy Photoshop off the shelf. I paid a subtantial sum to Adobe, and I have an undisputed right to possess and use Photoshop permanently. Can I finally legally say that I own a copy of Photoshop?
Krause argued that Titleserv never owned the program copies at issue, but rather possessed them as a licensee pursuant to an oral agreement. Titleserv countered that it owned the copies because it paid Krause a substantial sum to develop them and had an undisputed right to possess and use them permanently.
This quote is from:
HERE
Hoy! An oral agreement.
Legal, binding, but not provable in this case.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Surprised no one has picked up on the implication for the GPL.
Right now you don't need to agree to the GPL to compile/use/run GPL software, since those things don't trigger copyright protections.
But previous to this, if you modified it at all, copyright law kicks in and you must abide by the GPL, by modifying it, you stepped outside allowed use under "all rights reserved" and are thus you can only operate under the terms of the GPL.
Under this precedent, you can modify it even if it were released under "All Rights Reserved" and thus do not need to comply with the GPL.
This may have serious implications regarding possible GPL V3 clauses on internally modified GPLed software that is used as a network service. If you can modify the software within your rights under "All Rights Reserved" then you may not have to comply with any GPL V3 provision that says you must distribute source for internally modified GPL programs running as network services.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
IANAL, but I don't think that [assignment of copyright to an employer] happens by default. That's why companies have you sign something that makes it explicit.
I'm not an attorney, either, but I have been an employer. The error of the statement above, and a similar line of thought in this comment below, is that everything in a contract is stuff that isn't already in the law. That's simply not true.
When you create a contract, you do it for a few reasons. One is to address things that aren't already covered adequately elsewhere. Another is to have a single document where all terms are agreed upon, to establish that all parties knew their rights and responsibilities -- even if they are already coded in law. Another is that terms in contracts are often easier to enforce than the same terms coded as law (in terms of suing someone for violation).
When someone hires you to create a work, they own the copyright under the doctrine of "work for hire". The contracts do a couple of things: they spell this out explicitly, and often extend the provision to works you were not directly asked to create.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
The word "utilize" came from the statute, not the court decision (and certainly not from the SC).
"Utilize" is not the same thing as "use", which is why you see so many grammarians getting their collective panties in a wad over seeing it in print. To "use" something denotes action in conformance with the thing's designed purpose. To "utilize" something means to use in a way that differs from the as-designed purpose. I can't "utilize" a hammer to drive a nail, I can only "use" it. However, I can "utilize" a screwdriver handle to drive a nail.
The fact that the word "utilize" was, er, used, actually played an important part in the district court's ruling. Use of that word specifically means that the owner can "stretch" a computer program to other purposes without violating copyright, as long as the principle use is the same (e.g., same sort of transactions being processed).
Firstly, they did not decide the the company had any copyright. The case does not explicitly say, however based on the decision it seems that Krause was a contractor, not an employee, otherwise the company would own the copyright. Either that, or the company had an incompetent lawyer who failed to plead that point, which would have seen the case summarily dismissed much more easily so that the more interesting stuff here would not have needed any discussion.
Based on the description of things from the court, William Krause is not just an arsehole without the slightest bit of integrity in his body, but is a seriously incompetent programmer who should never be allowed to work in the industry again. He wrote the software in such a way that the only way to add customers to it was to modify the software - no input form for this guy, just hard code customer details into the source code. There were other problems of this nature, but that one alone should tell you enough to know he is incompetent and you should avoid him. Then when he and the company parted ways, he told them they could continue to use the software but could not make any modifications to it. Since they could not add customers to it, this effectively meant they could not get any use out of it. That should be enough to make it clear this guy is a complete arsehole.
Now, under 17 USC 117(a)(2), the owner of a copy of the program (that is, not the owner of the copyright, but the owner of the physical copy) legitimately obtained, does not infringe by doing anything necessary as an essential step in using the software. The company made the modifications predominantly for the purpose of adding customers and related things that ought to be ordinary functionality of the program, but could only be done by modifying the code because of the way this incompetent had implemented the thing. They also fixed bugs, which the court found was an "essential" step in using the program.
The company also reformatted the code and gave variables meaningful names. Now that would appear to go beyond essential steps, but it could be argued that this was necessary in order to be able to make the other essential modifications. It does not strike me as going quite as far as "essential", but put yourself in the position of the judge who has before him (or her) such a lowlife plaintiff. You can't change the law, but whether the step is essential or not is a question of fact that the judge can decide - if it's close enough to the fuzzy areas, whose side are you going to go with? As it turned out it seems the plaintiff did not argue that directly, but if he had he would most likely have lost on that point too.
The company also made enhancements - to add stuff like cheque printing. The court found this essential by finding (as a matter of law) that making the program more useful to its owner is a part of utilisation, and modification is an essential step in doing that. This part does create some tension with DMCA provisions - is a game more useful if it does not require you to have its CD in the drive? There is certainly an argument to be made that "No-CD" modifications are legal under this rule. In Australia the tension of such an interpretation with its equivalent of the DMCA is resolved by Stevens v Sony, which would state that the CD checking code does not qualify as a technological protection measure since it does not prevent the copying, only makes the software useless if copied (in the wrong way).
The final point is the most interesting one from a geek point of view. TitleServ also made modifications to make the software work with their new computer system, and more importantly, their new Windows operating system. The court found that copying the software onto the new Windows operating system and modifying it to work with that is protected. How does that help geeks? Think of Wine! Using Microsoft components on Li