• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 35

My comments

• DMCA is in conflict with another Federal Law!
  Please read this article on a recent ruling between a consultant (Mr. Krause) and the company he created a custom application for (TitleServ).
  
  The basic disagreement is that Mr. Krause asserted copyright ownership after failing to negotiate an extention to his consulting contract with TitleServe. However, he allowed them to keep using the suite of applications while disallowing them from making any further code modifications. TitleServe eventually would decompile his applications, fix bugs that were in the system and ultimately add new features to suit the changing business needs.
  
  Mr. Krause then sued TitleServe where he lost and sued again with the same results.
  
  This case is interesting, because it reaffirmed 17 USC SS 117(A)(1) as a legitimate defense against copyright infringement for anyone who
  

  
  
  • Owns a physical copy of the program
    
  • As an essential step in utilizing the program makes an adaptation in conjunction with a machine
    
  • Uses it in no other manner
    
  
  
  Based on this successful case, it appears that we can modify any software we buy.
  
  This law appears to be in direct conflict with DMCA.
  
  What does everyone think? Am I crazy on this??
  
  The actual court opinion is here if you want to read it for yourself.
  
  Summary of Case:
  Mr. Krause
  * Consultant (dba Special-T software)
  * Copyright owner
  * Terms of license allowed normal usage, no modification of code allowed
  * Initiated termination of consulting relationship
  
  Titleserv
  * License holder of copyrighted work
  * Failed attempt to acquire copyright ownership
  * Modified copyrighted code
  * Successfully defends itself against copyright infringement via 17 USC SS 117(A)(1)
  
  The Case
  * Not about work for hire
  * Not about copyright ownership (Mr. Krause's copyright ownership is not in dispute)
  * Clarifies what copyright infringement is

  April 25, 2008

  1 reply

• James Pickell is my hero!
  I bow down before his feet and grovel.

  November 14, 2006

  0 replies

• Another similar site
  http://www.sparkpeople.com also does the same thing, but has been around for at least two years.
  
  I must say, I like the interface of the Daily Plate from a quick scan of it. In reply to: "Weight loss 2.0"

  June 22, 2006

  0 replies

• They named an entire planet/moon after that dog!
  Of course, you know I'm just kidding.
  
  Right?
  
  Hello, is this thing on?

  February 28, 2006

  0 replies

• Nice Point
  As my bias is towards the dismantling of the DMCA, that's one more piece of evidence that the DMCA is unconstitutional.
  
  So the DMCA considers any attempt to circumvent encryption schemes illegal, that puts the DMCA in conflict with yet another piece of legislation...the First Ammendment!
  
  I'm not saying that everything is bad about the DMCA, just that part seems overly broad and advantageous to copyright holders.
  
  Just speaking my mind.

  February 20, 2006

  0 replies

• True but
  Mr. Krause was clearly not an employee, that's why they were negotiating for copyright transfer and his next 5 year consulting deal.
  
  Copyright ownership is not in dispute here. The only thing in dispute is for a licensee's right to modify copyrighted works and surprisingly it appears to be legal.
  
  Thanks for the link though. I found it useful for my general education.
  
  More interestingly is how this will work with existing laws on copyright derivative works and more seiously the DCMA.

  November 9, 2005

  0 replies

• Severability
  Usually there is a severability clause that keeps the remaining valid portions of a contract in force in the event of any part of the contract being invalid.

  November 9, 2005

  0 replies

• What about DCMA?
  So far, after reading the article and the court ruling (PDF copy), this is my understanding of what happened:
  
  Mr. Krause
  * Consultant (dba Special-T software)
  * Copyright owner
  * Terms of license allowed normal usage, no modification of code allowed
  * Initiated termination of consulting relationship
  
  Titleserv
  * License holder of copyrighted work
  * Failed attempt to acquire copyright ownership
  * Modified copyrighted code
  * Successfully defends itself against copyright infringement via 17 USC SS 117(A)(1)
  
  The Case
  * Not about work for hire
  * Not about copyright ownership
  * Clarifies what copyright infringement is
  
  Conclusions
  
  It does appear that by this ruling, it would be permissible to license a program and create derivative works from it.
  
  I wonder how this jives with copyright law?
  
  Doesn't this ruling also fly in the face of the DCMA (which I think is unconstitutional BTW if anyone cares)?
  
  Ooh, let the sparks fly!
  
  I predict the big boys will tear this one down.

  November 9, 2005

  0 replies

• Interesting ruling
  It does sound like we are now allowed to plunder software packages that we legally own.
  
  Can I now legally use DLL (dynamic link libraries) that have features I could use to enhance my website? For example, MS Office has a wonderful spell check feature that would be handy to implement on-line for the price of just one MS Office copy? (I know, there are cheaper alternatives, but it's just an example)
  
  Perhaps I should just do it and not alert Microsoft to this little loop hole.
  
  Too late.
  
  Rhyss Leary

  November 8, 2005

  1 reply

• Copyright Ownership belongs to you by default
  My understanding is that when you create something in a tangible form, you (by default) own the copyright to that creation.
  
  By that logic, the company would have to stipulate that they own anything you create in their employment agreement which is the case where I work.
  
  Failing that stipulation, it would then fall back to the copyright belonging to the creator.
  
  If there was a verbal agreement that copyright was assigned to the company, then they should argue as such.
  
  Just the opinion of a lowly programmer trying to earn a living.

  November 8, 2005

  2 replies