CompuServe Thread

#Hmmm

22 messages in this thread
#75884From: Dave CinegeNov 4, 1992 4:48 AM
Now don't everyone attack me…I'm not taking sides just asking a question. Lets say a software company goes out of business. Now the way the laws are written, is the software you bought from them while they were still in business protected, or is it 'a free for all' to distribute? Dave Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 – via Whap!
#75888From: Marlene Zenker/SYSOPNov 4, 1992 6:09 AM
The copyright on the software still stands, and the software can't be distributed. That's because even though the business went under, *someone* still owns the copyright (generally one of the principals in the company), and has the rights to the product. That's why ever so often you'll see a company go under, and then a few months later another company will start distributing the first company's software. Steve
#76020From: Sean LallyNov 4, 1992 8:17 PM
Steve, Just out of curiosity, do you know how long a copyright on software lasts? -Sean
#76079From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 5, 1992 12:16 AM
Sean, I'm doing this from memory…so I could be wrong..it's been a while since I looked it up. But I believe that a copyright expires 17 years after the death of the original author, or after 75 years, whichever comes first. Don
#76239From: Sean LallyNov 6, 1992 8:10 AM
Don, I'm not sure if you're going to get two messages on this or not, my machine just crashed and it's not showing any record of a post on AP…Anyhow, thanks for the info on copyrights. Do you think there's any corelation between copyright on paper versus software? -Sean
#76317From: Marlene Zenker/SYSOPNov 6, 1992 9:06 PM
I think it lasts for the life of the author plus 75 years. I'd have to look it up. Anyway….I'd be mighty impressed if someone was able to take advantage of a copyrighted program after that length of time. :*) Steve
#75904From: Michael GerardNov 4, 1992 7:51 AM
The Copyrights are still in force. A copyright is issued to the author, not just the company, in much the same way a patent is issued.
#76068From: Dave CinegeNov 4, 1992 11:52 PM
I don't think your right about that…..becuase if the author left the company he could take everything he wrote with him, not a wise investment on the companies part. Dave Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 – via Whap!
#76080From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 5, 1992 12:19 AM
Dave, If it was a 'work for hire' or in the scope of the employee's employment, then the company owns the copyright. In any other case, the author retains the copyright, but any company that doesn't buy exclusive rights (thus for all intents and purposes…owns the copyright) under those conditions…deserves what they get if the author leaves and takes the copyright with them. Don
#76098From: Michael GerardNov 5, 1992 1:35 AM
It depends. Most corporations (including the US government) can claim the rights to anything developed or published by an employee, if the work was produced at the direction of the company. For instance, I have a friend who many years ago invented the overhead projector while working for the government. All she got was a $50 bonus.
#76123From: BILL LEACHNov 5, 1992 8:37 AM
MIchael; You might want to take a look at more recent law on copyrights. The courts used to just about grant anything to the employer. Now they are holding that unless the contract with the employee specifically confers copyright of intellectual work to the employer then the employee holds same. I would not want to "take on" one of the big boys with that but… -bill
#76191From: Dean BrownNov 5, 1992 8:44 PM
Bill, The way I understood it is that only applies to 'contract' programmers. (ie. work for hire) if the relationship is employee/employer then the employer is the copyright holder. Dean DKB Software
#76246From: BILL LEACHNov 6, 1992 8:58 AM
Dean; You could very well be right. This is not a matter for one that is involved to take casually, however I did think that both situations were similar now. -bill
#76212From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 6, 1992 12:49 AM
Bill, I agree with Dean. Employee's come under the 'scope of their employment' provisions. Don
#76230From: Dominick J. FontanaNov 6, 1992 4:46 AM
Don, Dean is indeed correct. However, employees only come under the "scope of their employment" provision, if the copyrighted material was actually created in the scope of their employment. The case law has shown that not all software created by someone, who happened to work for someone else at the time, is ipso facto created in the scope of their employment. Dom Fontana <– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
#76342From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 6, 1992 11:35 PM
Dom, Absolutely…I was speaking of the software also being created within the scope of their employment. If, as a store clerk, on my own time, develop POS software…the store doesn't automaticaly own it. There is some grey area, but not alot. Don
#76531From: Dominick J. FontanaNov 8, 1992 3:51 AM
Don, The store clerk example is true, but I was talking about a software programmer who works for a developer, who develops software on his own time. Dom Fontana <– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
#76609From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 8, 1992 5:36 PM
Dom, Ok, with a software developer who develops software on his/her own time…still a grey area according to what I've read in the popular press about such issues. For example, what if I (the software developer) stay after hours and use the company's computers to develop this software. Or what if I take an idea I've heard a manager talk about to another programmer and decide I like the idea and use it in a commercial product. Or what if I "borrow" snippets of code I've developed for the company and apply it to my own program. Now, if I do everything completely outside the work environment, that is…program conception, coding, etc. then that's clearly the property of the programmer. Don
#76248From: BILL LEACHNov 6, 1992 8:59 AM
Don; Could very well be right but I suspect that the job definition or employment contract has to indicate that now. (naturally anyone that tried to act and did not get expert legal opinion on this is a fool). -bill
#75928From: Jim Nangano/SYSOPNov 4, 1992 11:16 AM
Dave, I'll cite a specific example. A game that I've been involved with, "Empire – Wargame of the Century" was published by Interstel, who had a license to publish this game from the holders of the copyright. About a year ago, this license to publish was rescinded (in accordance with the terms of the original contract), which means that Interstel no longer can sell the game. Interstel may or may not still be in business. The game is no longer in print. However, the game is still the intellectual property of the holders of the copyright, and they have licensed their property to my company (White Wolf Productions). We do have plans for the game, which is why we have made the investment to acquire the rights. We will be releasing a new, greatly improved version of the game (to be called Empire Deluxe). However, if folks were to take the attitude that the original game were freely distributable, we would be damaged by this action. It is not a "free for all" – the original copyrights are still valid and enforcable. The only way for a product to be legally distributable is if the owner of the copyright (or his successors) were to EXPLICITLY grant such rights. One cannot make such an assumption simply because a company ceases to exist. Whenever a company goes out of business, the assets of that company (whatever remains) must be disbursed in some manner. The copyrights held by that company are part of those assets, so _someone_ would still own the rights. Hope this clarifies….. – BobR
#75945From: Betty Clay/SYSOPNov 4, 1992 12:34 PM
Dave, This has been one of the stickiest of all problems for me to decide. I've asked many of the people I trust most what to do about this, and they cannot decide, either. My particular example was of a word processor written for the Commodore 8032 machine. It is no longer available anywhere. The company that published it has long since been out of business. The author of the software has no financial interest in it, having sold it to the publisher back around 1979-80, and has told one of my friends that he has no objection to its being distributed. There are still people using those machines, and they need this excellent word-processor. To make it even worse, that software was ROM-protected. I'm quite capable of creating those ROMs, but what about the morals of it? Also, I was given a non-protected version of the program many years ago when both of my ROM slots were filled and I needed to use a third ROM-protected program. I've never passed that along to anyone – but would it be improper to do so now? The machine and the program are obsolete for most people these days, but I still cannot bring myself to give away this commercial software. —Betty
#76077From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 5, 1992 12:07 AM
Dave, I haven't read the other replies…but hope they say the same: Yes, the software is still protected by the copyright laws. It makes no difference if the corporate entity still exists, the copyright was an asset of the company and would have been divided up along with the other assets. And all else failing, the copyright would revert to the author of the software. Don