Discussion in 'DSL & Info Tech News' started by duhwho, Jul 14, 2006.
the only spam i like is the spam i can eat... hehehe...
regarding ms windows 98 sir. it is still illegal to use it without a license. according to BSA all companies, brand name under their wing regardless supported or not supported by the company is still considered the property of the said company. therefore they will still pursue those who uses illegally procured license or installation of windows from xp to down. remember the license of all windows does not mean we OWN the software. if u have carefully read the EULA(End User License Agreement) of microsoft it specifically says that the program/os is still the property of M*****ft. the license only gives the end user the permission to USE the OS and not OWN it.
Here's a copy of the MS Windows End User License Agreement
End-User License Agreement for Microsoft Software
IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software that accompanies this EULA, which includes associated media and Microsoft Internet-based services ("Software"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Software. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install and use an unlimited number of copies of the Software on personal computers or other devices.
1.2 License Grant for Templates. The Software may include document templates. You may copy and modify the document templates available as part of the Software and distribute such templates along with your modifications for use by other licensees of the Software; provided however that you may not sell, resell, license, rent, lease, lend, or otherwise transfer for value, the templates. You must indemnify and defend Microsoft against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees that arise from or result from the licensing or distribution of the templates as modified by you.
1.3 License Grant for Samples and Redistributable Code. The Software may include "samples" of documents, software programs and/or web pages. The Software also may include "redistributable" components in object code form. The following terms describe your rights to the samples and redistributable components included in the Software:
* Samples. You may modify the "samples" and distribute copies of such samples, including your modifications, in object code form, provided you comply with the distribution requirements described below.
* Redistributable Code. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the programs and files and distribute such redistributable components in object code form as part of your value-added products and/or services, provided you comply with the distribution requirements described below. For purposes of this Section, a "value-added product or service" means a software product or service, including a web page, which adds significant and primary functionality to the redistributable component.
* Distribution Requirements. You may only distribute the sample and redistributable code if you comply with the requirements above and you (a) do not use Microsoft's name, logo or trademarks to market or identify any of your products or services, unless you are party to a separate agreement giving you such rights, (b) indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise from or result from the use or distribution of modified samples or from your value-added products and services, (c) include a valid copyright notice on the modified samples and value-added products and services that include redistributable components, (d) do not permit further redistribution of the redistributable components by third parties except as part of your value-added products and services, and (e) otherwise comply with the terms of this EULA.
1.4 License Grant for Documentation. The documentation that accompanies the Software is licensed for internal, non-commercial reference purposes only.
2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS. You may not use any Microsoft Internet-based services associated with the Software in any manner that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair such services or interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of them. You may not attempt to gain unauthorized access to any service, account, computer systems or networks associated with the Internet-based services.
3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold. This EULA does not grant you any rights to trademarks or service marks of M*****ft.
4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by this EULA or applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
5. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services with the Software.
6. CONSENT TO USE OF DATA. You agree that Microsoft and its affiliates may collect and use technical information gathered as part of the product support services provided to you, if any, related to the Software. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you and will not disclose this information in a form that personally identifies you.
7. LINKS TO THIRD PARTY SITES. Microsoft is not responsible for the contents of any third-party sites or services, any links contained in third-party sites or services, or any changes or updates to third-party sites or services. Microsoft is providing these links and access to third-party sites and services to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link or access does not imply an endorsement by Microsoft of the third-party site or service.
8. ADDITIONAL SOFTWARE/SERVICES. This EULA applies to updates, supplements, add-on components, or Internet-based services components, of the Software that Microsoft may provide to you or make available to you after the date you obtain your initial copy of the Software, unless they are accompanied by separate terms. Microsoft reserves the right to discontinue Internet-based services provided to you or made available to you through the use of the Software.
9. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. You acknowledge that the Software is subject to U.S. export jurisdiction. You agree to comply with all applicable international and national laws that apply to the Software, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, as well as end-user, end-use, and destination restrictions issued by U.S. and other governments. For additional information see <http://www.microsoft.com/exporting/>.
10. TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the Software and all of its component parts.
11. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA.
Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt.
If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY-DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you.
Any supplements or updates to the Software, including without limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day Limited Warranty period are not covered by any warranty or condition, express, implied or statutory.
LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if the Software does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty, and, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its essential purpose. The terms of Section 13 ("Exclusion of Incidental, Consequential and Certain Other Damages") are also incorporated into this Limited Warranty. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you. This Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights. You may have other rights which vary from state/jurisdiction to state/jurisdiction. YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty or for any other breach of this EULA or for any other liability relating to the Software shall be, at Microsoft's option from time to time exercised subject to applicable law, (a) return of the amount paid (if any) for the Software, or (b) repair or replacement of the Software, that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. You will receive the remedy elected by Microsoft without charge, except that you are responsible for any expenses you may incur (e.g. cost of shipping the Software to Microsoft). This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the Software has resulted from accident, abuse, misapplication, abnormal use or a virus. Any replacement Software will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer, and Microsoft will use commercially reasonable efforts to provide your remedy within a commercially reasonable time of your compliance with Microsoft's warranty remedy procedures. Outside the United States or Canada, neither these remedies nor any product support services offered by Microsoft are available without proof of purchase from an authorized international source. To exercise your remedy, contact: Microsoft, Attn. Microsoft Sales Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399, or the Microsoft subsidiary serving your country.
12. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
13. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
14. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all damages referenced herein and all direct or general damages in contract or anything else), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy hereunder (except for any remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 11, 12 and 13) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose.
15. U.S. GOVERNMENT LICENSE RIGHTS. All Software provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to solicitations issued on or after December 1, 1995 is provided with the commercial license rights and restrictions described elsewhere herein. All Software provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to solicitations issued prior to December 1, 1995 is provided with "Restricted Rights" as provided for in FAR, 48 CFR 52.227-14 (JUNE 1987) or DFAR, 48 CFR 252.227-7013 (OCT 1988), as applicable.
16. APPLICABLE LAW. If you acquired this Software in the United States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington. If you acquired this Software in Canada, unless expressly prohibited by local law, this EULA is governed by the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, Canada; and, in respect of any dispute which may arise hereunder, you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial courts sitting in Toronto, Ontario. If you acquired this Software in the European Union, Iceland, Norway, or Switzerland, then local law applies. If you acquired this Software in any other country, then local law may apply.
17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; SEVERABILITY. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included with the Software) is the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the Software and the support services (if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Software or any other subject matter covered by this EULA. To the extent the terms of any Microsoft policies or programs for support services conflict with the terms of this EULA, the terms of this EULA shall control. If any provision of this EULA is held to be void, invalid, unenforceable or illegal, the other provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
The following MICROSOFT GUARANTEE applies to you if you acquired this Software in any other country:
Statutory rights not affected - The following guarantee is not restricted to any territory and does not affect any statutory rights that you may have from your reseller or from Microsoft if you acquired the Software directly from M*****ft. If you acquired the Software or any support services in Australia, New Zealand or Malaysia, please see the "Consumer rights" section below.
The guarantee - The Software is designed and offered as a general-purpose software, not for any user's particular purpose. You accept that no Software is error free and you are strongly advised to back-up your files regularly. Provided that you have a valid license, Microsoft guarantees that a) for a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of your license to use the Software or the shortest period permitted by applicable law it will perform substantially in accordance with the written materials that accompany the Software; and b) any support services provided by Microsoft shall be substantially as described in applicable written materials provided to you by Microsoft and Microsoft support engineers will use reasonable efforts, care and skill to solve any problem issues. In the event that the Software fails to comply with this guarantee, Microsoft will either (a) repair or replace the Software or (b) return the price you paid. This guarantee is void if failure of the Software results from accident, abuse or misapplication. Any replacement Software will be guaranteed for the remainder of the original guarantee period or 30 days, whichever period is longer. You agree that the above guarantee is your sole guarantee in relation to the Software and any support services.
Exclusion of All Other Terms - To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law and subject to the guarantee above, Microsoft disclaims all warranties, conditions and other terms, either express or implied (whether by statute, common law, collaterally or otherwise) including but not limited to implied warranties of satisfactory quality and fitness for particular purpose with respect to the Software and the written materials that accompany the Software. Any implied warranties that cannot be excluded are limited to 90 days or to the shortest period permitted by applicable law, whichever is greater.
Limitation of Liability - To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law and except as provided in the Microsoft Guarantee, Microsoft and its suppliers shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information or other pecuniary loss) arising out of the use or inability to use the Software, even if Microsoft has been advised of the possibility of such damages. In any case Microsoft's entire liability under any provision of this Agreement shall be limited to the amount actually paid by you for the Software. These limitations do not apply to any liabilities that cannot be excluded or limited by applicable laws.
Consumer rights - Consumers in Australia, New Zealand or Malaysia may have the benefit of certain rights and remedies by reason of the Trade Practices Act and similar state and territory laws in Australia, the Consumer Guarantees Act in New Zealand and the Consumer Protection Act in Malaysia in respect of which liability cannot lawfully be modified or excluded. If you acquired the Software in New Zealand for the purposes of a business, you confirm that the Consumer Guarantees Act does not apply. If you acquired the Software in Australia and if Microsoft breaches a condition or warranty implied under any law which cannot lawfully be modified or excluded by this agreement then, to the extent permitted by law, Microsoft's liability is limited, at Microsoft's option, to: (i) in the case of the Software: a) repairing or replacing the Software; or b) the cost of such repair or replacement; and (ii) in the case of support services: a) re-supply of the services; or b) the cost of having the services supplied again.
Should you have any questions concerning this EULA, or if you desire to contact Microsoft for any reason, please use the address information enclosed in this Software to contact the Microsoft subsidiary serving your country or visit Microsoft on the World Wide Web at http://www.microsoft.com.
1. A legal document giving official permission to do something, a permit.
2. The legal terms under which a person is allowed to use a product, especially software.
Even if you bought this product, it does NOT belong to you. You have a license to use it under the terms of this agreement, until you breach this agreement.
3. Freedom to deviate deliberately from normally applicable rules or practices (especially in behavior or speech)
4. Excessive freedom; lack of due restraint.
When liberty becomes license dictatorship is near, Will Durant
5. An academic degree, the holder of which is called a licentiate, ranking slightly below doctorate, awarded by certain European and South American Universities.
FOR HOME USERS OR SMALL OFFICE YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY, BSA DOES NOT HAVE THE LIBERTY OF TIME TO CHECK YOUR UNITS IF YOU ARE USING A LICENSED OR ILLEGALLY INSTALLED MS PRODUCTS OR ANY SOFTWARE THAT IS ON THEIR WATCH LIST. I-CAFE BEWARE AS YOU ARE THE ONES EXPOSED TO THE PUBLIC ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS, BSA WANTS A BULK RAID FOR THESE REASONS:
1.) MEDIA EXPOSURE ON A LARGE CRACKDOWN OF ILLEGAL INSTALLATION OF WINDOWS(WITH EDU MANZANO AS THEIR MASCOT AS USUAL)
2.) BIG BUCKS FOR BSA, THE MONEY OR DAMAGES BEING ASKED BY BSA DOES NOT GO THE RESPECTIVE COMPANY THAT THEY ARE PROTECTING BUT MERELY GOES TO THEIR BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING/PROFIT. BSA IS A BUSINESS THEY ARE BEING PAID BY MAJOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS TO BE THEIR WATCHDOGS.
3.) BIG BUCKS AS WELL FOR THE RAIDING TEAM. NO BSA OR OMB IS ALLOWED TO RAID A CERTAIN ESTABLISHMENT WITHOUT BEING ACCOMPANIED BY ANY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (I.E. CIDG. NBI, ETC.ETC.) BSA ONLY CONDUCTS THE INSPECTION BUT THE ORGANIC TEAM SERVES THE WARRANT.
4.) DO NOT ALLOW A CERTAIN GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL TO ENTER AND SERVE THE WARRANT IF NOT ACCOMPANIED BY ANY OF THE ORGANIC TEAM MENTIONED ABOVE. THESE PEOPLE RUNS A MODUS OPERANDI OF PRESENTING THEMSELVES AS BSA AGENTS. DO NOT AGAIN DO NOT PAY THEM GREASE MONEY!!! THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTED VICTIMS OF THE SAID FAKE BSA AGENTS..
just my two cents..
so i guess its illegal to own a copy of dos games, its illegal to download mario bro, prince of persia, lotus 123, wordperfect and wordstar that is already considered legacy, and has reach its product life cycle end and no longer getting support from the company
not exactly sir duhwho, BSA does not support the company who made DOS games. BSA was not around the phil. during the DOS days.
Is BSA a law body? I mean why make such statesment?
by saying having a copy of windows 98 still illegal without license? a software that already reach its cycle of life, and no longer supported by the company would require people to pay for such fee for a license for a legacy software?
correct me if im wrong, but EULA is non-perpetuity binding, its only hold to a software that still being produce, distributed, and supported. I mean can you file a charges to someone who illegal use or having an illegal copy of a legacy software?
technically yes, under our law and international law. i have discussed this matter with our company lawyer since we use MS windows 98 for some of our short VoIP domestic routes. If u have noticed that everytime you try to install any MS Products there would always be a EULA. Before u can install any of their products you have to press accept. This means u accept the terms and condition virtually. It means if they see a MS Product installed in your system YOU have agreed and READ the terms and condition of the EULA regardless if it is not supported any more by M*****ft. Fact is, they still own the software whether its OLD or NEW, Supported or not Supported.
Philtranco has lots of bus nationwide but not all of them are in running condition. the old philtranco bus are being kept in their junkyard. not because it is junk we can just go in and salvage anything we can use out of the bus. and if caught u will be charge with trespassing, theft etc. etc. same goes with windows 3.11 or windows 98 not because its old and not supported anymore, MS still owns the source code and is protected by IPR.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In law, intellectual property (IP) is an umbrella term for various legal entitlements which attach to certain types of information, ideas, or other intangibles in their expressed form. The holder of this legal entitlement is generally entitled to exercise various exclusive rights in relation to the subject matter of the IP. The term intellectual property reflects the idea that this subject matter is the product of the mind or the intellect, and that IP rights may be protected at law in the same way as any other form of property. However, the use of the term and the concepts it is said to embody are the subject of some controversy (see below).
Intellectual property laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, such that the acquisition, registration or enforcement of IP rights must be pursued or obtained separately in each territory of interest. However, these laws are becoming increasingly harmonised through the effects of international treaties such as the 1994 World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), while other treaties may facilitate registration in more than one jurisdiction at a time. Certain forms of IP rights do not require registration in order to be enforced.
Who Is BSA(Business Software Alliance)
Promoting a safe and legal digital world
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) is the foremost organization dedicated to promoting a safe and legal digital world.
BSA is the voice of the world's commercial software industry before governments and in the international marketplace. Its members represent the fastest growing industry in the world.
BSA educates consumers on software management and copyright protection, cyber security, trade, e-commerce and other Internet-related issues.
Established in 1988, BSA has programs in 80 countries worldwide.
BSA Public Policy
The software industry is one of the fastest growing segments of the world's economy-employing millions and generating innovations that are rapidly transforming all aspects of society; from business to government to the ways individuals communicate. These rapid transformations are also spawning new legislative and regulatory initiatives around the world.
As policymakers contemplate initiatives that will impact the future of this dynamic industry, the Business Software Alliance works to advance policy solutions that promote innovation, job creation, and economic growth. One of the most important policy issues advanced by the Business Software Alliance is promotion of strong intellectual property protection — both through establishment and implementation of good copyright laws.
In addition, BSA examines other policy issues impacting the future growth of the industry and the information economy such as electronic commerce, telecommunications, encryption, and tariff issues-on physical and electronic goods.
BSA calls for speedy judicial process on software piracy cases
Manila, Philippines - The Business Software Alliance (BSA), a non-profit trade organization promoting the use of licensed software, expresses optimism in the favorable status of judicial process on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) cases.
This follows the recent conviction of Nestor Yao, managing director of Gains Computer and Telecommunications, Inc. for illegal copying, sale and distribution of unlicensed software belonging to BSA members Adobe Systems, Inc. and Microsoft Corp. Yao is facing three to six years imprisonment and a fine of 200,000 pesos.
“The recent conviction of a businessman involved in software copyright infringement case signifies that the Philippine government is putting high regard on IPR. We hope that the conviction of Mr. Yao will make business owners realize that software piracy is an offense subject to serious legal and unfavorable business consequences”, said Tarun Sawney, BSA Director for Anti-Piracy in Asia.
The case against Yao is the second conviction involving software copyright infringement. In 2002, another businessman was convicted for the same offense. Harold Chua, owner of Triac Marketing was sentenced to one-year imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 pesos for illegal copying and selling of software products belonging to Microsoft Corp.
Cases of both Yao and Chua were filed in 1998. It took almost four years for the court to release a decision on Chua’s case and eight years for Yao’s case. To date, around 21 cases filed by the BSA are pending in court.
“With this development, we are expecting more decisions to come out involving software piracy cases. We hope that the Philippine judicial system will continue to have speedy decisions on software piracy cases as piracy brings negative effects to the whole country”, added Sawney.
The recent study on software piracy conducted by the IDC found that losses to the industry amounted to 3.9 billion pesos in 2005. The Philippine economy will surely benefit if software piracy is lowered. It also showed the economic benefits for the country from a 10-point reduction of software piracy rate in four years. This reduction could add 19.2 billion pesos to the economy, create 2,000 high-tech, high-wage jobs, and generate more than 1 billion pesos in new tax revenues.
Sawney also reiterated BSA’s support to the government’s campaigns on IPR protection. The BSA maintains a memorandum of understanding with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines to strengthen the drive against software piracy and promote the role of software industry in the country’s economic development. The BSA also supports the Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team composed of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Optical Media Board (OMB), and Philippine National Police (PNP).
As part of its continued campaign for use of licensed software, BSA will soon be launching a campaign promoting its anti-piracy hotline. “We hope that maintaining a single hotline number will make it easier for the public to remember that number. Also, we want to make the process of reporting software piracy cases more accessible from anywhere in the Philippines”, Sawney said.
The BSA recently awarded an individual the sum of 500,000 pesos for reporting a software piracy case that led to successful raid against the erring company. This is the largest amount BSA has rewarded an individual so far.
The BSA has also launched the Software Asset Management (SAM) Advantage Program as part of its educational campaign on the use of licensed software. The program seeks to acknowledge companies for the successful implementation of SAM practice in their business. SAM practice refers to the set of policies, procedures, technologies and people within an organization working together to take full advantage of all its software. Around 300 companies joined the program. The BSA is set to award SAM Advantage Certificate to 31 companies that consist the first batch of SAM-certified companies.
i am not against piracy for i know their products are very expensive. but hey you do get some benefit out of what you are paying. there will always be linux if you cant afford to have a MS Windows. This message is for the one's using MS Products in public view since you are the favorite target's of BSA Agents.As stated above it took BSA years before a decision was made on the IPR cases on Chua and Yao. Bottomline, is it much cheaper to go thru all the hassle for four years paying atty. fee's court fees etc. etc. than gettin a licensed windows ?? i doubt....it took them a long time to be convicted but again the law will get to you in due time. if u have as much moolah as microsoft then by all means go fight with them and file a counter charge.
just my two cents
im not here about piracy im here about paying license to use when its not already supported or already legacy software
just like i mentioned, even lotus 123, word perfect and others has its own eula... but since they are already a legacy then use of the software is now free no need for license.
there is a difference between the use of pantranco bus, analogy is not correct...because in the first place pantranco bus is not in my property, kaya trespassing ako.
i'm not saying i own windows 98 and microsoft has no rights on win98, what I am saying i dont have to pay license for a product no longer being supported.
That's why most software company put their legacy software in archives and anyone can access and use it, provided that they know that the use of software is no longer supported by the company, and consequence might happened using the said software no longer make the company liable.
paying software is good idea, provided consumer can get benefits from it, but paying software no longer supported and consumer can no longer benefited from a support is a different story.
back to win98 sir, there are no brand new retail of the said product so i guess u wont need to be paying for such. maybe u can buy a used one on a very cheap rate.xp home,xp pro are the ones on the shelves of computer dealers nowadays. they have actually stopped manufacturing Windows 98 na. and regarding the legacy issue. i don't see any Official Microsoft Site that says, FREE Windows 98 Download on our Archives and besides an IPR or a Copyright has a Maximum of 20 years before it expires. Counting the years since the production of the first windows, nde pa rin umabot ng 20 years. Any windows based programs or application is still the property of the rightful owner until such IPR or Copyright has reached its maximum tenure.so i guess this clears out whehter supported or not supported issue. sir duhwho i hope i did not anger you in someways. just sharing a healthy opinion lang po.
dont worry im not angry.. i just being a devil advocate here.. i just want some clear point of view on part of the consumer specialy we are talking about fees etc
yes microsoft hasnt put the win98 on archives, i only mentioned other company. becoz win98 has just recently been off the hook. But DOS 1.0 2.0 and 3.0 is now free to download but of course not from microsoft, but having a copy of this would not make you illegal users since DOS system is obsolete specially on that version, except for DOS 6.0
IBM DOs also is legacy. btw, windows 1.0 is also a legacy.
but then again, lets put the legal matter on the hands of legal luminaries after all they are paid for that matter.
BSA saucks as well as the PILIPINAS ANTI PIRACY TEAM.... la kwenta sila may mga EULA man lahat ng softwares useless din kung kasing weak ng BSA at PILIPINAS ANTI PIRACY TEAM ang magpapatupad nito. so it means the EULA of microsoft will not mean anything pag nandito ka sa pinas ilan na ba na convict jan dalawa pa lang ata ang case ay year 90's pa. if microsoft is sincere na maging legitimate lahat they will shell out some of their fortunes in convicting the illegal ones in court. kaso parang d sila seryoso d ba. ang tingin ko kasi jan eh just simply a MARKETING STRATEGY sana lang mali ako, sa dami ba naman ng pera ni GATES d na nya hahabulin yung mga pirata pasalamat pa sya sa kanila kasi madami gumamit ng MICROSOFT products because of those pirates, kasi lam naman nya dami namang open source and free softwares.
i beg to disagree with you sir, Phil. is not even on the top 10 list of countries sa ratings ng piracy of MS Products. Read the news, CHINA and INDIA are the number 1 country who use and pirate MS Products. If i was bill gates, why would i cut the branches id rather go straight to the roots and the rest will follow. check www.bsa.org click on china and india. you will see how dedicated the agents that are assigned in that particular area.
here's a simple logic and suggestion. i do not intend to annoy or anger anybody by this. if you dont have the money to buy MS Products then dont acquire one.its like buying a Ford Expedition V6(Intel Dual Core PC) and you cant afford the gas to run the system(Windows Vista). there is always linux system available which is free, if u dont have any idea on how to install linux pls. refer your queries to sir raldz and sir duhwho. its a simple choice actually, i am not a fan of microsoft or linux. i use OS what i think suits best for my needs and for my business.
sad to say but this is true, i am a true blooded filipino and proud to be one. sometimes SOME of our fellow filipinos are really hard headed. being shrewd is good in business but being overly shrewd is a no no. if you want to have a long term business then plan ur steps carefully. Acquiring Basic things legally is a must, some acquired illegal stuffs is good but make sure those items/softwares/peripherals are too minor to be noticed. being shrewd is smart being overly shrewd is DUMB, not only will u risk your business but urself as well. True it takes a long time for the court to decide on the IPR case but in the end the law will get you. now tell me is it worth all the hassle paying the atty. fee than getting a licensed windows ?? how much would be a atty.'s fee per appearance ?? 2 to 3k ?? now multiply that by 3 court hearing in a month x 12 months x 8 years. do the math and enlighten all of us here if its saving money in the end??
just my two cents.
hehehe but u already purchased before pa yung announcnement ng crackdown, kahit pa it cost me thousand pesos but i need to be legit para safe kaso inisip safe from what? may pera pa ako sa reseller up to now d ko makuha and even MICROSOFT wala magawa about it, kahit pa nga ang DTI and yet they are silent sa pinagsasabing crackdown, so still microsoft pa ang may utang sa akin... well its not that big naman 4 thousand lang...
law law law, i am even a law student once and the sad thing is money is the one who makes the decission and money is the making those laws... if you have money you have everything.. alam mo kung bakit di sila seryoso sa IPR na yan coz minor case sa kanila yan and they have to deal with big cases like drugs carnapping kidnaping etc kasi mas may pera dun, kaya lang yun ang alam nila d nila alam na mas magkakapera sila sa IPR kasi even mga big company are having this illegal softwares they extort money from them...
lam mo kung ano sagot sa akin ng DTI nung mag complain ako kasi tinanong ko asan na ba raid sabi magasatos yun utoy kaya d ganun ka dami ang raid so it means d naman ginagastusan ng bsa and software concerned ang raid so wala mahuhuli.
kasi kung walang gasolina hindi tatakbo.....
are you sure it's 20 years regarding IPR? or software copyright?
20 years for the copyright and renewable
livewire is correct about the legality of use of such abandoned softwares...
because even if the software is no longer supported nor distributed, it does not extinguish the owner's copyright...
if a copyright owner, such as MS stop the production or support of any software, it still enjoys an ongoing protection for the entire term of the copyright...
Unless the copyright owner puts the software in the public domain or in writing, it still remains covered under copyright law until its copyright term expires...
and as far as i know, no software is old enough for its copyrights to have expired...
however, old software's copyright is frequently no longer defended either due to author's lack of interest or the company no longer exist to defend it...
Intellectual property law
o Moral rights
* Related rights
* Geographical indication
* Industrial design rights
* Trade secrets
* Sui generis rights
o Database rights
o Mask work
o Plant breeders' rights
o Supplementary protection certificate (SPC)
o Traditional knowledge
Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation. In most cases, these rights are of limited duration. The symbol for copyright is © (Unicode U+00A9), and in some jurisdictions may alternatively be written as either (c) or (C).
Copyright may subsist in a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms or "works". These include poems, theses, plays, and other literary works, movies, choreographic works (dances, ballets, etc.), musical compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, software, radio and television broadcasts of live and other performances, and, in some jurisdictions, industrial designs. Copyright is a type of intellectual property; designs or industrial designs may be a separate or overlapping form of intellectual property in some jurisdictions.
Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work. Copyright law provides scope for satirical or interpretive works which themselves may be copyrighted. See idea-expression divide.
For example, the copyright which subsists in relation to a Mickey Mouse cartoon prohibits unauthorized parties from distributing copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works which copy or mimic Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of artistic works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they are sufficiently different to not be imitative of the original. Other laws may impose legal restrictions on reproduction or use where copyright does not - such as trademarks and patents.
History of copyright
Main article: History of copyright
Authors, patrons, and owners of works throughout the ages have tried to direct and control how copies of such works could be used once disseminated to others. Mozart's patron, Baroness von Waldstätten, allowed his compositions created for her to be freely performed, while Handel's patron (George I, the first of the Hanoverian kings) jealously guarded "Water Music."
Two major developments in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries seem to have provoked the development of modern copyright. First, the expansion of mercantile trade in major European cities and the appearance of the secular university helped produce an educated bourgeois class interested in the information of the day. This helped spur the emergence of a public sphere, which was increasingly served by entrepreneurial stationers who produced copies of books on demand. Second, Gutenberg's development of movable type and the development and spread of the printing press made mass reproduction of printed works quick and much cheaper than ever before. The process of copying a work could be nearly as labor intensive and expensive as creating the original, and was largely relegated to monastic scribes before printing. It appears that publishers, rather than authors, were the first to seek restrictions on the copying of printed works. Given that publishers commonly now obtain the copyright from the authors as a condition of mass reproduction of a work, one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does authors. This is one of the chief arguments in favor of peer-to-peer file sharing systems, making an analogy with the changes wrought by printing.
An interesting attempt at copyright in the early modern period was the notice attached to the ha- Shirim asher li-Shelomo , a setting of the Psalms by the composer Salomone Rossi, which happened to be the first music to be printed with a Hebrew type-face text (1623). It included a rabbinical curse on anyone who copied the contents.
Breakthrough: rights vested in author rather than publisher
While governments had previously granted monopoly rights to publishers to sell printed works, the modern concept of limited duration copyright originated in 1710 with the British Statute of Anne. This statute first accorded exclusive rights to authors (ie, creators) rather than publishers, and it included protections for consumers of printed work ensuring that publishers could not control their use after sale. It also limited the duration of such exclusive rights to 28 years, after which all works would pass into the public domain.
There were territorial loopholes in the 1710 Act. It did not extend to all British territories, but only covered England, Scotland, and Wales. Many reprints of British copyright works were consequently issued both in Ireland and in North American colonies, without any license from the copyright holder required. These works were frequently issued without payment to British copyright holders, so they were cheaper than London editions. They were popular with book-buyers, but were not copyright infringements in the formal sense of the word, being within the law. The term was used, however.
In Ireland and North America there were reprint publishers who sought out formal arrangements with and made payments to British copyright holders. This illicit reprint trade was also engaged in by some Scottish publishers. These publishers were sometimes prosecuted.
Irish reprints became a matter of great concern to London publishers. Their reprints undermined direct sales to Ireland. They also crossed the border into England, and were especially sold in English provincial markets which were becoming increasingly important to London publishers. Booksellers who sold these reprints in England, Scotland, and Wales were subject to prosecution.
Between 1710-1774 there was legal debate about what length of time was meant in the 1710 act.
In the 1730s, publishers in Scotland began to reprint titles that they no longer considered to be covered by copyright. Scottish publishers printed what they perceived to be public domain English works whose copyright had expired. They sold these titles in Scotland, and in the English provinces. English publishers objected to this, on the basis of what they saw as common-law rights and property (under the concept of common-law rights in the English system), which predated the Copyright Act. Under common-law rights, rights in published works were held to continue into perpetuity.
The case of Donaldson vs Beckett, in 1774, brought disagreements on the length of copyright to an end. The outcome of the case resulted in the decision that Parliament could, and had, put a limit on copyright length. This decision reflected a shift in English ideas of copyright. The English lords who made the decision in 1774 decided that it was not in the public's best interest to have London publishers control books in perpetuity, particularly as English publishers commonly kept prices high. There were some notions that this was a cultural or class issue. Works in perpetual copyright were seen to have limited access by some citizens to the cultural history of their own land.
Concepts of the roles of the author and publisher, of copyright law, and of general Enlightenment notions, interacted in this period. Authors had been previously seen to be divinely inspired. Patronage was a legitimate way to support authors, in part because of this. Authors who were paid, rather than entering into patron-relationships, were often regarded as hacks, and looked down upon. However, the notion of individual genius was becoming more common during the 1770s (the generation after Donaldson v Beckett), and being a paid author therefore became more accepted.
In Great Britain's North American colonies, reprinting British copyright works without permission had long happened episodically, but only became a major feature of colonial life after 1760. It became more commonplace to reprint British works in the colonies (mostly in the 13 American colonies). The impetus for this shift came from Irish and Scottish master printers and booksellers who had moved to the North American colonies in the mid 18th century. They were already familiar with the practice of reprinting and selling British copyright works, and continued the practice in North America, and it became a major part of the North American printing and publishing trade. Robert Bell was an example. He was originally Scottish, and had spent almost a decade in Dublin before he moved to British North America in 1768. His operations, and those of many other colonial printers and booksellers, ensured that the practice of reprinting was well-established by the time of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776. Weakened American ties to Britain coincided with the increase of reprinting outside British copyright controls.
The Irish also made a flourishing business of shipping reprints to the North America in the 18th century. Ireland's ability to reprint freely ended in 1801 when Ireland's Parliament merged with Great Britain, and the Irish became subject to British copyright laws.
The printing of uncopyrighted English works for the English-language market also occurred in other European countries. The British government responded to this problem in two ways: 1) it amended its own copyright statutes in 1842, explicitly forbidding import of any foreign reprint of British copyrighted work into the UK or its colonies, and 2) it began the process of reciprocal agreements with other countries. The first reciprocal agreement was with Prussia in 1846. The US remained outside this arrangement for some decades. This was objected to by such authors as Dickens and Mark Twain.
The Berne Convention
The 1886 Berne Convention first established recognition of copyrights among sovereign nations, rather than merely bilaterally. Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Berne Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto the Convention.
The UK signed the Bern Convention in 1887 but did not implement large parts of it until 100 years later with the passage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. The USA did not sign the Berne Convention until 1989.
French copyright laws
Further information: French copyright law and DADVSI
French copyright law is based the Rights of the Author.
On 8 December 2005 the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris concluded that file sharing through peer-to-peer was not a crime . The judgement was based on the right to "private copy" described in the Intellectual Property Code which includes the use of digital media .
On 7 March 2006, however, the National Assembly passed the DADVSI Act which implemented - with some modifications - the 2001 European Union Copyright directive. The DADVSI act makes peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted works an offense. It does, however, allow for sharing of private copies of tape recording and other media.
United Kingdom copyright methodology
Main article: Copyright law of the United Kingdom
British law states that an individual's work is placed under copyright law as soon as it leaves that person's mind and is placed in some physical form, be it a painting, a musical work written in manuscript or an architectural schematic. Once in physical form, as long as it is an original work (in the sense of not having been copied from an existing work, rather than in the sense of being novel or unique), copyright in that work is automatically vested in (i.e. owned by) the person who put the concept into material form. There may be exceptions to this rule, depending on the nature of the work, whether it was created in the course of employment and the purposes for which the work was created. The UK copyright distinctively emphasizes the labour and skill that has gone into the work, which is why some of its basic principle are sometimes referred to as the 'Sweat of the Brow' doctrine. This stands in contrast to the usual emphasis on creativity—most countries have adopted copyright laws that do not consider labour and skill as relevant. The term 'Unfair Use' is sometimes used in this context to refer to the use of a work into which somebody has invested a lot of skill and labour, but where little or no creativity is present. This is mainly relevant for reproduction photography and retouching of public domain work and for 'simple' databases, where, in contrast to collections, no creativity was involved in selecting the records.
Evidentiary issues may arise if the person who authored a work has only their word to prove that the work is original and their own work. The author of an unpublished manuscript or little-known publication, which is remarkably similar to a popular novel, will have an uphill battle convincing a court that the popular novel infringes the copyright in their obscure work. Taking some precautionary steps may help to establish independent creation and authorship.
For example, when a web designer designs a webpage (based upon his own work) under a contract for services, the webmaster owns the copyright in at least the underlying code of that website. A common and simple practice to obtain evidence in favour of authorship is to place the copyright material in an envelope or package together with a document signed by several people stating that they have examined the work prior to it being sealed and that in their opinion it is original. Once this is done the package is mailed to the owner by recorded delivery, which helps to establish when the work was created, who the originator of the work is and that there are signatory validators prepared to state that it is original. Once this process is complete the package and contents may be able to be usable in a court of law as evidence of date of creation (and so priority) if necessary.
Franz Zauleck's logo Laufendes Auge – ineligible for German copyright
Franz Zauleck's logo Laufendes Auge – ineligible for German copyright
German Urheberrecht is a droit d'auteur style law, which means that there is a special emphasis on the relation between the work and its actual author. There is no corporate copyright in Germany and the fundamental rights cannot be transferred except by heritage. However, exclusive licenses are almost as powerful as copyright transfer (and, according to the law, such an exclusive license is given to the employer automatically if the work contract does not make a different arrangement). A significant difference is that licenses can only extend to known uses of the work, so if somebody submitted a scientific paper to a journal before the internet was a known use for them (1995 is usually assumed as a key date), the journal arguably did not obtain the rights for internet distribution according to the Urheberrecht.
Court decisions have set vastly different standards for the eligibility of works of applied art on the one hand and other types of work on the other, especially fine art. While the barrier is usually very low for fine art and protection is granted even for minimal creativity (dubbed 'kleine Münze'), there are extremely high standards for applied art to be reached for it to achieve copyright protection. This is so because Geschmacksmuster (design patents) and Schriftzeichengesetz (typeface patents) are seen as lex specialis for applied art such that the threshold of originality must not be assumed low for them. This has been confirmed by courts several times, especially for logos, but also for earrings.
Since the respective EU directive has been implemented, simple databases enjoy a very limited (15 years) 'sweat of the brow' like protection.
Spanish copyright law
The Spanish copyright is regulated in the Intellectual Property Law formulated in 1987 and amended in 1996. Currently, the copyright holds during the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. It always assigns copyright to the author and he or she is not allowed to disclaim it.
The law explicitly allows the right to make private copies of copyrighted work without the author's consent for published audiovisual works if the copy is not for commercial use. To compensate authors, the law establishes a compensatory tax associated with certain recording media (CDs, DVDs, cassettes), managed through societies of authors and editors (as SGAE and CEDRO). Some consumer's associations and specialized lawyers contend that the current legislation allows file sharing (as with p2p networks) as this is not for profit and is for private use . Additionally, the Penal Code explicitly requires the intention of commercial profit in order to commit a crime against the Intellectual Property .
United States copyright law
Main article: United States copyright law
An author's exclusive right to his creation is mandated in the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, also known as the Intellectual Property Clause, which also gives Congress the power to enact statutes: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. 17 U.S.C. § 105, withholds copyright from all publications produced by the United States Government, and its agents or employees while in their employment. All such work is therefore in the public domain in some sense.
Congress first exercised this power with the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1790, and has changed and updated copyright statutes several times since. The Copyright Act of 1976, though it has been modified since its enactment, is currently the basis of copyright law in the United States.
The length of the copyright term within the United States was extended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which made the copyright term the life of the author plus 70 years for works created after January 1, 1978. In the case of a work of corporate authorship (also known as "Work for Hire") the term will be 95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first. This legislation was challenged in court and affirmed by the US Supreme Court in the landmark copyright decision, Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), in which the Supreme Court agreed that the length of the copyright term (ie, during which the copyright holder has a monopoly on its exploitation) could be extended by Congress after the original act of creation and beginning of the copyright term, as long as the extension itself was limited instead of perpetual. The duration of U.S. copyright for works created before 1978 is a complex matter; however, works published before 1923 are all in the public domain.
Tajikistan copyright law
Main article: Tajikistan copyright law
Australian Copyright Law
Main article: Australian copyright law
Trans-national copyright law
Main article: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
The Berne Convention provides for national treatment of other countries' copyright. In other words, France must treat a work that is copyrighted in the U.K. as if it were copyrighted in France, receiving the protection of French (not U.K.) copyright law.
The protections of the Berne Convention are incorporated into the World Trade Organization's TRIPS agreement, thus making the Berne Convention practically world-wide.
Obtaining and enforcing copyright
Typically, a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright, and the copyright expires after a set period of time (some jurisdictions may allow this to be extended). Different countries impose different tests, although generally the requirements are low; in the United Kingdom there has to be some 'skill, originality and work' which has gone into it. However, even fairly trivial amounts of these qualities are sufficient for determining whether a particular act of copying constitutes an infringement of the author's original expression. In Australia, it has been held that a single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work.
In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted or obtained through official registration with any Government Office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while a copyright need not be officially registered for the copyright owner to begin exercising his exclusive rights, registration of works (where the laws of that jurisdiction provide for registration) does have benefits; it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees (whereas in the USA, for instance, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits). The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the actual author rather than the author himself if the work is a "work for hire". Again, this principle is widespread; in English law the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that where a work in which copyright subsists is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically assigned to the employer.
Copyrights are generally enforced by the holder in a civil law court, but there are also criminal infringement statutes. Criminal sanctions are generally aimed at serious counterfeiting activity, but are now becoming more commonplace as copyright collectives such as the RIAA are, more and more, targeting the file sharing home Internet user. Thus far however, these cases have usually been settled outside of court, with demands of payment of several thousand dollars accompanied by nothing more than a threat to sue the file sharer, which will be ruinous to many defendants in practice, thus such cases rarely make their way to civil law courts.
It is important to understand that absence of the copyright symbol does not mean that the work is not covered by copyright. The work once created from originality through 'mental labor' is instantaneously considered copyrighted to that person.
Use of a copyright notice — consisting of the letter C inside of a circle (that is, "©"), the abbreviation "Copr.", or the word "Copyright", followed by the year of the first publication of the work and the name of the copyright holder — was part of previous United States statutory requirements. (Note that the letter C inside of parentheses ("(c)") has never been an officially recognized designator.) But since 1989, when the U.S. adhered to the Berne Convention, the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, as the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic. However, notice of copyright (using these marks) does have consequences in terms of allowable damages in an infringement lawsuit in some places.
The phrase All rights reserved was once a necessary formal notice that all rights granted under existing copyright law are retained by the copyright holder and that legal action may be taken against copyright infringement. It was provided as a result of the Buenos Aires Convention of 1910, which required some statement of reservation of rights to grant international coverage in all the countries that were signatory to that convention. While it is commonplace to see it, this notice is now superfluous, as every country that is a member of the Buenos Aires Convention is also a member of the Berne Convention, which hold a copyright to be valid in all signatory states without any formality of notice.
This phrase is sometimes still used even on some documents to which the original author does not retain all rights granted by copyright law, such as works released under a copyleft license. It is, however, only a habitual formality and is unlikely to have legal consequences.
The exclusive rights of the copyright holder
Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:
* to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
* to import or export the work
* to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
* to perform or display the work publicly
* to sell or assign these rights to others
The phrase "exclusive right" means that only the copyright holder is free to exercise the attendant rights, and others are prohibited using the work without the consent of the copyright holder. Copyright is often called a "negative right", as it serves to prohibit people (e.g. readers, viewers, or listeners, and primarily publishers and would be publishers) from doing something, rather than permitting people (e.g. authors) to do something. In this way it is similar to the unregistered design right in English law and European law. The rights of the copyright holder also permit him/her to not use or exploit their copyright for its duration. This means an author can choose to exploit their copyright for some of the duration and then not for the rest, vice versa, or entirely one or the other.
There is however a critique which rejects this assertion as being based on a philosophical interpretation of copyright law as an entity, and is not universally shared. There is also debate on whether copyright should be considered a property right or a moral right. Many argue that copyright does not exist merely to restrict third parties from publishing ideas and information, and that defining copyright purely as a negative right is incompatible with the public policy objective of encouraging authors to create new works and enrich the public domain.
The right to adapt a work means to transform the way in which the work is expressed. Examples include developing a stage play or film script from a novel; translating a short story; and making a new arrangement of a musical work.
Limits and exceptions to copyright
Main article: Limitations and exceptions to copyright
Idea-expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine
Main article: Idea-expression divide
A copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — this is called the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy. For example, if a book is written describing a new way to organize books in a library, a copyright does not prohibit a reader from freely using and describing that concept to others; it is only the particular expression of that process as originally described that is covered by copyright. One might be able to obtain a patent for the method, but that is a different area of law. Compilations of facts or data may also be copyrighted, but such a copyright is thin; it only applies to the particular selection and arrangement of the included items, not to the particular items themselves. In some jurisdictions the contents of databases are expressly covered by statute.
In some cases, ideas may be capable of intelligible expression in only one or a limited number of ways. Therefore even the expression in these circumstances is not covered. In the United States this is known as the merger doctrine, because the expression is considered to be inextricably merged with the idea. Merger is often pleaded as an affirmative defense to charges of infringement. That doctrine is not necessarily accepted in other jurisdictions.
The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights
Main articles: First-sale doctrine and Exhaustion of rights
Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a copyrighted book or CD. In the United States this is known as the first-sale doctrine, and was established by the courts to clarify the legality of reselling books in second-hand bookstores. Some countries may have parallel importation restrictions that allow the copyright holder of their licensee to control the aftermarket. This may mean for example that a copy of a book that does not infringe copyright in the country where it was printed does infringe copyright in a country into which it is imported for retailing. The first-sale doctrine is known as exhaustion of rights in other countries and is a principle which also applies, though somewhat differently, to patent and trademark rights. It is important to note that the first-sale doctrine permits the transfer of the particular legitimate copy involved. It does not permit making or distributing additional copies.
In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying his or her own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved. However, in countries that implement moral rights, a copyright holder can in some cases successfully prevent the mutilation or destruction of a work that is publicly visible.
Fair use and fair dealing
Main articles: Fair use and Fair dealing
Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
In the United Kingdom and many other Commonwealth countries, a similar notion of fair dealing was established by the courts or through legislation. The concept is sometimes not well defined; however in Canada, private copying for personal use has been expressly permitted by statute since 1999. In Australia, the fair dealing exceptions under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) are a limited set of circumstances under which copyright material can be legally copied or adapted without the copyright holder's consent. Fair dealing uses are research and study; review and criticism; news reportage and the giving of professional advice (ie legal advice). Under current Australian law it is still a breach of copyright to copy, reproduce or adapt copyright material for personal or private use without permission from the copyright owner. Other technical exemptions from infringement may also apply, such as the temporary reproduction of a work in machine readable form (eg, in an information technology storage system).
In the United States the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act Codified in Section 10, 1992) prohibits action against consumers making noncommercial recordings of music, in return for royalties on both media and devices plus mandatory copy-control mechanisms on recorders.
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Later acts amended US Copyright law so that for certain purposes making 10 copies or more is construed to be commercial, but there is no general rule permitting such copying. Indeed making one complete copy of a work, or in many cases using a portion of it, for commercial purposes will not be considered fair use. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner. An appellate court has held that fair use is not a defense to engaging in such distribution.
It is absolutely vital to remember that copyright regimes can and do differ between countries, even countries which both adhere to the same copyright Convention. It would be dangerous to assume that an activity permitted by the laws of one country is necessarily permitted elsewhere.
Main article: Compulsory license
A compulsory license is an exception to copyright, pursuant to which another party can exercise one or more of the copyright's exclusive rights without having to obtain the copyright holder's permission (hence "compulsory") but will have to pay a licensing fee.
Compulsory licenses are often justified as a governmental correction to market failure.
The common saying among musicians that one can always "cover" someone else's song is, though not entirely correct, a reflection of the fact that in the United States, musical works are subject to compulsory licenses.
Main article: Philosophy of copyright
Critics of copyright as a whole fall broadly into two camps: Those who assert that the very concept of copyright has never been of net benefit to society, and has always served simply to enrich a few at the expense of creativity; and those who assert that the existing copyright regime must be reformed to maintain its relevance in the new Information society. The French droit d'auteur ("Rights of the Author"), which influenced the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, must also be noted as a significant alternative to the usual Anglo-Saxon concept of copyright.
Among the latter group, there are also some who continue to agree with copyright as a way to grant authors rights, but feel that it "outlives its welcome" by granting copyright for too long (eg, far beyond the lifetime of the author), and is therefore of little direct benefit to him or her. The prolongation of copyright term is commonly attributed to effective corporate lobbying, based on a desire for the continuance of a profitable monopoly. In the US, this is often phrased as a conspiracy to 'control the Mouse' (meaning Mickey Mouse, a copyrighted character controlled by the Disney Company and who would have moved into the public domain save for such an extension).
To many critics, the general problem is that the current (international) copyright system undermines its own goal (Boyle 1996, 142). The concepts of the public domain and the intrinsic freedom of information are necessary precepts for creators to be able to build on published expression. But these are gradually being eroded, as copyright terms are repeatedly extended to last beyond the lifetime of the audience which experienced and knows of the original work.
Other copyright scholars believe that, regardless of contemporary advances in technology, copyright remains the fundamental way by which authors, sculptors, artists, musicians and others can fund the creation of new works, and that absent legal protection of their material interests, many valuable books and artworks would not be created. They remind us that the alternative to the modern, market-driven copyright system was the patronage of governments and aristocracies, with obvious great potential for the patrons to limit and censor the kinds of works being produced. The public interest is, arguably, served even by repeated extension of copyright terms to encompass multiple generations beyond the copyright holder's life, not only because many "authors" and copyright holders are corporations with the ability to make new investments in older works (for example, the restoration of old movies), but also because the right of an author's heirs to continue to profit from a copyrighted work may provide a substantial part of the incentive to create. Another effect of the repeated extension of copyright term is that current authors are shielded from competition from a wide public domain. By the time works currently enter the public domain, they have almost always become obsolete (though the persistent publication and sale of classic literature is a notable exception).
The recent success of free software projects such as GNU/Linux, Mozilla Firefox, and the Apache web server has demonstrated that quality works can be created even in the absence of a copyright-enforced monopoly rent . Instead, these products use copyright to enforce their license terms, which are designed to ensure the free nature of the work, rather than securing exclusive rights for the holder for monetary gain; such a license is called a copyleft, free software license, or open source license.
Even in more traditional forms such as prose, some authors, such as Cory Doctorow, retain the copyright to their work but license it for free distribution (for example under a Creative Commons License). This has the benefit of providing a structured scheme under which authors can loosen some of the barriers that copyright imposes on others, allowing them to partially contribute the work to the community (in the form of giving a general grant on copying, reproduction, use or adaptation subject to certain conditions) while retaining other exclusive rights they hold in it.
But defenders of the present system of strong copyrights argue that it has been largely successful in financing the creation and distribution of a wide variety of works, especially those requiring significant labor and capital. Moderate scholars seem to support that view while recognizing the need for exceptions and limitations, such as the fair use doctrine. Notably, a substantial portion of the current U.S. Copyright Act (sections 107-120) is devoted to such exceptions and limitations.
Copyright can also be used to stifle political criticism. For example, in the US the contents of talk shows and similar programs are covered by copyright. Robert Greenwald, a director of Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War documentary was refused the right to use a clip of a George W. Bush interview from NBC's Meet the Press. Although the fair use provisions of statute and common law may apply in such cases, the risks of loss in court should there be a lawsuit and pressure from insurance companies, who regard use of almost anything (eg, three words forming the opening of a song, though not actually sung by one of a group of children) without permission as too risky, usually precludes use of materials without explicit permission, and so without a license fee.
In the US in 2003, controversial changes implemented by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extending the length of copyright under U.S. copyright law by 20 years were challenged, unsuccessfully, in the United States Supreme Court. The Court, in the case called Eldred v. Ashcroft, held inter alia that in placing existing and future copyrights in parity in the CTEA, Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress Constitutional limitations. Other jurisdictions have enacted legislation to provide for similar extensions of the copyright term.
Copyright is also conceived by some to be an "artificial barrier" in that "expressions" could be freely exchanged between individuals and groups if there were no copyright or other legal restrictions preventing. Such people believe that as the state does not necessarily possess the moral authority to enact copyright laws, individuals may vary in their observation of such laws. As noted above, others disagree with that, believing that the copyright system, which arises from provisions in the U.S. Constitution, has made and continues to make a valuable even essential contribution to the creation and dissemination of works. They also point out the social dangers inherent in the view that each individual is entitled to judge the "moral authority" of laws and to observe them or not according to individual judgments.
Copyright concepts are under challenge in the modern era, primarily from the increasing use of peer to peer filesharing. Major copyright holders, such as the major record labels and the movie industry, blame the ease of copying for their decreasing profits. Other alternatives, such as poor product content, are dismissed as possible reasons. Public interest groups, major corporations and the like, are entering the public education system to teach the curriculum from their perspectives. The lobbying group for the MPAA provide a curriculum entitled What's the Diff? taught by a group of volunteers called Junior Achievement. The Business Software Alliance also has their own curriculum program called Play it Cybersafe, which is distributed to school children through a magazine called The Weekly Reader. There seems to be a general consensus amongst assorted interests in the USA that there needs to be some curriculum materials for school-aged children about copyright issues. A public-wiki has been installed by Downhill Battle to build a copyright curriculum called Copyright Curriculum for teachers to download and use in their classrooms. The American Librarian Association will also be releasing their own curriculum for librarians to distribute in winter 2004.
Transfer and licensing
A copyright, or aspects of it, may be assigned or transferred from one party to another. For example, a musician who records an album will often sign an agreement with a record company in which the musician agrees to transfer all copyright in the recordings to the company in exchange for royalties and other considerations. The creator (and original copyright holder) benefits, or expects to, from production and marketing capabilities far beyond those of the author. In the digital age of music, music may be copied and distributed at minimal cost through the Internet, however the record industry attempts to provide promotion and marketing for the artist and his work so it can reach a much larger audience. A copyright holder need not transfer all rights completely, though many publishers will insist. Some of the rights may be transferred, or else the copyright holder may grant another party a non-exclusive license to copy and/or distribute the work in a particular region or for a specified period of time. A transfer or licence may have to meet particular formal requirements in order to be effective; see section 239 of the Australia Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Under Australian law, it is not enough to pay for a work to be created in order to also own the copyright. The copyright itself must be expressly transferred in writing.
Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a transfer of ownership in copyright must be memorialized in a writing signed by the transferor. For that purpose, ownership in copyright includes exclusive licenses of rights. Thus exclusive licenses, to be effective, must be granted in a written instrument signed by the grantor. No special form of transfer or grant is required. A simple document that identifies the work involved and the rights being granted is sufficient. Non-exclusive grants (often called non-exclusive licenses) need not be in writing under U.S. law. They can be oral or even implied by the behavior of the parties. Transfers of copyright ownership, including exclusive licenses, may and should be recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office. (Information on how to do that is available on the Office's web site.) While recording is not required to make the grant effective, it offers important benefits, much like those obtained by recording a deed in a real estate transaction.
Copyright may also be licensed. Some jurisdictions may provide that certain classes of copyrighted works be made available under a prescribed statutory license (eg, musical works in the United States used for radio broadcast or performance). This is also called a compulsory license, because under this scheme, anyone who wishes to copy a covered work does not need the permission of the copyright holder, but instead merely files the proper notice and pays a set fee established by statute (or by an agency decision under statutory guidance) for every copy made. Failure to follow the proper procedures would place the copier at risk of an infringement suit. Because of the difficulty of following every individual work, copyright collectives or collecting societies and performing rights organizations (such as ASCAP, BMI, RIAA and MPAA) have been formed to collect royalties for hundreds (thousands and more) works at once. Though this market solution bypasses the statutory license, the availability of the statutory fee still helps dictate the price per work collective rights organizations charge, driving it down to what avoidance of procedural hassle would justify.
Copyright and file sharing
Copyrighted works copied onto digital media are easily and trivially exactly copied via file sharing. Attempts to prevent this have been largely unsuccessful, and file sharing has usually not resulted in severe consequences for the violators, though some organizations such as the RIAA and the MPAA have begun to sue individual violators they can identify, and to force sharing networks to either shut down or pay damages or both. However, producers of copyrighted material (ie, publishers) often attribute losses in their sales to online copying, yet they generally continue to produce material and make profits. To defenders of unauthorized file sharing, this lack of apparent ill-effect has been gradually eroding the belief that copyright as presently constructed is indispensable. A few artists actually support file sharing of their own works, arguing that it expands their audience to include people who would not otherwise be able or willing to legally purchase their material. The recording and motion picture industries, however, maintain that unauthorized file sharing, along with the production and sale of pirated hard copies of CDs and DVDs, have resulted in billions of dollars of lost sales. They attribute their continuing success to the fact that most people still obtain music, and especially movies, through authorized channels of distribution, a situation they hope to maintain by increasing the availability of authorized online services (such as Apple's iTunes).
It can be argued that, rather than criminalize millions of file sharers around the world who now routinely use the Internet to commit acts which can be argued breach copyright in this or that jurisdiction. Private enforcement of copyright having proven essentially ineffective, copyright holders have attempted to use the legal system to apply pressure on such users to purchase rather than copy their products. Bill Gates is on record as saying that there is no way to technically prevent copyrighted digital material from being copied; if so, future attempts to enforce control of copyrighted material may become uneconomic. As well as remaining unpopular among many. In the meantime, companies or individuals held by a court to have infringed copyright may be required to pay substantial amounts in damages. A recent and highly visible example is the Australian Kazaa case, Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd  FCA 1242 (5 September 2005); the company operating the Kazaa file-sharing system, and individuals associated with it, were held to have authorised infringement of copyright in musical recordings by their participation. The recording industry is expected to seek multimillion dollar damages.
Brief comparison with similar legal rights
Copyright law covers the creative or artistic expression of an idea. Patent law covers inventions. Trademark law covers distinctive signs which are used in relation to products or services as indicators of origin. Registered designs law covers the look or appearance of a manufactured or functional article. Trade secret law covers secret or sensitive knowledge or information.
Although copyright and trademark laws are theoretically distinct, more than one type of them may cover the same item or subject matter. For example, in the case of the Mickey Mouse cartoon, the image and name of Mickey Mouse would be the subject of trademark legislation, while the cartoon itself would be subject to copyright. Titles and character names from books or movies may also be trademarked while the works from which they are drawn may qualify for copyright.
Another point of distinction is that a copyright (and a patent) is generally subject to a statutorily-determined term, whereas a trademark registration may remain in force indefinitely if the trademark is periodically used and renewal fees continue to be duly paid to the relevant jurisdiction's trade marks office or registry. Once the term of a copyright has expired, the formerly copyrighted work enters the public domain and may be freely used or exploited by anyone. Courts in the United States and the United Kingdom have rejected the doctrine of a common law copyright. Public domain works should not be confused with works that are publicly available. Works posted in the internet for example, are publiclly available, but are not generally in the public domain. Copying such works therefore, such as by posting them in a Wikipedia article, may violate the author's copyright.
How long copyright lasts
Copyright subsists for a variety of lengths in different jurisdictions, with different categories of works and the length it subsists for also depends on whether a work is published or unpublished. In most of the world the default length of copyright for many works is either life of the author plus 50 years, or plus 70 years. Copyright in general always expires at the end of the year concerned, rather than on the exact date of the death of the author. (The right to reclaim a copyright--or "terminate the transfer" of a copyright--commences and ends on the anniversaries of exact dates in the United States.)
So when can one conclude that a book is in the public domain? In the United States, all books and other items published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain, and all works created by the U.S. Government, regardless of date, enter the public domain upon their creation. But if the intended exploitation of the book includes publication (or distribution of a film based on the book) outside the U.S., the terms of copyright around the world must be considered. If the author has been dead more than 70 years, the work is in the public domain in most, but not all, countries. In Italy and France, there are wartime extensions that could increase the term by approximately 6 years in Italy and up to about 14 in France. Some works are covered by copyright in Spain for 80 years after the author's death.
Main article: Moral rights
Many countries recognize certain moral rights of the author of a copyrighted work. Two key moral rights are the right not to have the work altered or destroyed without consent, and the right to be attributed as the author of the work.
The Monty Python comedy troupe famously managed to rely on moral rights in 1975 in legal proceedings against American TV network ABC for airing re-edited versions of Monty Python's Flying Circus.
The American exclusive rights tradition is inconsistent with the notion of moral rights as it was constituted in the Civil Code tradition stemming from post-Revolutionary France. In the United States, exclusive rights are statutory, defined and shaped by congress, but are required by a Constitutional clause. The first major copyright case in the United States, Wheaton v. Peters, established that copyright was not a natural right nor a common law right. When the United States signed the Berne Convention, they stipulated that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering libel and slander.
In most of Europe it is not possible for authors to assign their moral rights (unlike the copyright itself, which is regarded as an item of property which can be sold, licensed, lent, mortgaged or given like any other property). They can agree not to enforce them (and such terms are very common in contracts in Europe). There may also be a requirement for the author to 'assert' these moral rights before they can be enforced. In many books, for example, this is done on a page near the beginning, in and amongst the British Library/Library of Congress data.
Some European countries also provide for artist resale rights, which mean that artists are entitled to a portion of the appreciation of the value of their work each time it is sold. These rights are granted in respect of a non Anglo-Saxon tradition -- the droits d'auteur concept rather than copyright. Droits d'auteur, and most legislation implementing it, also grants all creators various moral rights beyond the economic rights recognized in most copyright jurisdictions (see also parallel import).
In the United States, typeface designs are not covered by copyright, but may be covered by design patents if sufficiently novel. Germany (in 1981) passed a special law for typeface protection (Schriftzeichengesetz). It adds some specific extensions to the design patent law (Geschmacksmustergesetz) such that typefaces can be registered as designs.
The United Kingdom (in 1989) have passed a law making typeface designs copyrightable. The British law is retroactive, so designs produced before 1989 are also copyrighted if the copyrights would not have already expired.
Unusual copyright grants
On rare occasions, rights can be granted outside of usual legislation. When the current UK copyright legislation was debated in Parliament, former Prime Minister Lord Callaghan of Cardiff successfully proposed an amendment entitling the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children to indefinitely retain the rights to payments of royalties for performances of Peter Pan. This privilege can be seen explicitly written into Schedule 6 of the Act.
The King James Version of the Bible also has an unusual status: While it is in the public domain throughout most of the world, production in the UK must be authorized by the Crown. Lily's Latin Grammar was also under perpetual crown copyright as of 1911.
Main article: Copyright registration
Registering copyright in the United States
While copyright in the United States automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship, registration with the Copyright Office puts a copyright holder in a better position if litigation arises over the copyright. A copyright holder desiring to register his or her copyright should do the following:
1. Obtain and complete appropriate form.
2. Prepare clear renditon of material being submitted for copyright
3. Send both documents to U.S. Copyright Office in Washington, D.C.
source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
nice going livewire...
Separate names with a comma.