FREE ESSAY ON COPYRIGHTS LAWS

COPYRIGHTS LAWS

Software and copyright 
Current copright and patent laws are inapropriate for computer software; their imposition
slows down software development and reduces competition. From the first computer as we
know them, the ENIAC, computer software has become more and more important. From
thousands of bytes on miles of paper to millions of bytes on a thin piece of tin
foilsandwitched between two pieces of plastic, software has played an important part in
the world. Computers have most likely played an important role in all our lives, from
making math easier with calculators, to having money on the go with ATM machines.
However, with all the help that has been given to us, we haven't done anything for
software and the people who write it. Software by nature is completely defenseless, as it
is more or less simply intellectual property, and not a physical thing, thus very easily
copied. Copied software does not make money for its creators, and thus they charge more
for whats not copied, and the whole industry inflates.
There are two categories of intellectual property. The first one is composed of writing,
music, and films,which are covered by copyright. Inventions and innovations are covered
by patent. These two categories have covered for years many kinds of work with little or
no conflict. Unfortunately, it is not that easy when dealing with such a complex matter
as computer software. When something is typed on a computer, it is considered writting,
as it is all written words and numbers. However, when executed by the computer, it
functions like an invention, performing a specific task as instructed by the user.
Thus, software falls into both categories (Del Guercio 22-24). It is generally covered
today by copyright laws, for most mass market software at least. More advanced software
or programming techniques, however, can be patented, as they are neither obvious nor old.
This results in many problems which I will go into later. 
Copyrights last the lifetime of the author, plus 50 years, and can be renewed. Patents
last only 17 years, but cannot be renewed. With technology advancing so quickly, it is
not necessary to maintain the protection of the software for the length of the copyright,
but also, it is sometimes necessary to renew them (Del Guercio 22-24), say, for a 10th
sequel in a video game series or version 47.1 of Bob's Graphic Program. With copyrighted
material, one is able to write software similiar to someone else's, so long as the
programming code is their own, and not borrowed from the others (Del Guercio 22-24). This
keeps the industry competitive, and thus results in better software (because everyone is
greedy, and they don't want to fall behind). With patents no one is allowed to create
software that performs a similar functions. Take AutoCAD and TrueSpace 2, two 3D modeling
programs. TrueSpace 2 would be a violation of patent laws, as it performs a very close
task to AutoCADs, which came first. Luckily for us, CAD programs are not new, they have
been around for more than 10 years, and no one thought to patent them.
Thus, you can see the need for change in the system. The current laws regarding the
protection of intellectual material cannot adequately protect software, they are either
too weak or too strict. We need a new category of protection. The perfect protection law
would most likely last for 10 years, renewable. This is long enough to protect a program
for as long as it is still useful, and allows for sequels and new versions just in case.
It would also have to allow for others to make similar software, keeping the industry
competitive, but it would have to not allow copying of portions of other software
(because you can't 'quote' something from someone elses software like you can with a
book). However, there are many who dispute this, and I can see their point. Current
copyright laws have and will protect software effectively, it can be just as protected as
other mediums (Cosgrove). This is true sometimes, however, to copy a book would take
time. You would have to type up each page to make a copy of it, or at least photocopy or
scan each page, and it would most likely take up much more time than its worth. To copy a
computer program however, takes seconds. 
Changing the law would take time and money, you might be saying. It would be a tremendous
hassle in Congress to have a new law written just to cover that Information Superhighway
thingy. Yes, that's true too, but to not change the laws will cost more. With the ability
to patent new and non-obvious software functions comes serious problems. The latest new
technology, be it ray-tracing 3D engines, anti-aliasing software, or a new internet
exploring fad can be patented. This would mean that only one company and its software
could use it. Any other companies that wanted to use the software would have to pay them
a large sum of money for the rights. Also, since patent hearings are conducted over a
period of 3 years, and in secrecy, company 'a' might create a software package and then
apply for a patent, and company 'b' may create better software during that period, and
might become quite sucessful, and then bam, the patent is given to the company 'a', who
prompty sues the pants off company 'b'. This stagnates the computer industry; it used to
be that company 'a' would retaliate by making better software (Del Guercio 22-24). 
For example, Lotus software. They used to make data organization software. Up until I did
this report, I thought they had gone out of business, because I hadn't heard about
anything new being done by them. Well, while I was researching, I found the appalling
truth. When patenting of software became acceptable in the early 90's, they closed up
their R&D departments and called in a bunch of lawyers to get them patents on all their
programming techniques (Del Guercio 22-24). Ever since then, they've been selling out the
rights as their primarily (and I'm willing to bet, only) business.
This could even be taken to the extremes of actually patenting simple methods of handling
data, such as say, mouse support. Now, it can't happen to mouse support as it is today,
but in the future, something undoubtably will replace the mouse as the preferred method
of input, for instance, in what may be a virtual reality future, the glove might be the
input device. Anyway, say it did happen to mouse support. Every single program that uses
mouse support would have to pay a fee for the rights to do so. This would result in
higher software prices (aren't they high enough?), and reduced quality in the programs,
as they have to worry about the legalities more (Del Guercio 22-24). Needless to say, the
patenting of software is not a widely loved policy, mostly embraced by large corporations
like Lotus and Microsoft (Tysver Software Patents). Smaller companies and most often
consumers are generally against it.
Even with all the legal problems I've mentioned that arise with current laws, thats not
all. The complexity of software protection laws brings up a large degree of confusion. I
myself thought that copyrights lasted 7 years until I read this. I asked 15 people in a
chat room on the Internet what they knew about software protection laws, and only one of
them knew that software could be patented. 12 of them thought that it cost lots of money
for a copyright, which it doesn't. It's $20 for a copyright at most, and $10000 at most
for a patent. 5 of them thought that software copyrights lasted 7 years (hey, it's a
popular misconception, I thought so myself at one point). And last but not least, 10 of
them believed that there was no laws regarding the copying of software (there are, but
they're virtually ineffective).
Now that you know all about the legal and business aspects of software protection, lets
take a look at how it can affect you. Say you've got a web page, and you've got a link on
your web page to your friend Bob's web page, and he's got a link on his page to Joe'S
LeeT PiRaCY aND WaReZ, and on that site, there is a link to a pirated copy of AutoCAD.
Then Joe gets busted. Joe will almost certainly be in trouble, Bob will likely be either
questioned or considered responsible, depending on the blatancy of the link, and YOU will
likely be questioned and your page might be monitored for a time (Bilodeau). One such
example is my web page. I had a link from my page (the Wierd Wide Web) to Archaic Ruins,
which is a site regarding information on emulators of old video game systems. When the
operator of Archiac Ruins got sued by a video game company (I think it was Konami), I too
got questioned, and had my page had ANY questionable material on it, I would have been
sued. Thankfully, I was too lazy to work on the page, as I had planned to put up a page
that had really old videogames. Who said procrastination was bad?
How can you prosecute someone for a crime that is undefined? Thats a question many people
are asking. What is a copy of software? Is it a physical clone of the media it came on?
Or is it the code duplicated to someplace else? If so, where else? Currently, software
copying is generally considered a copy of the code someplace else... but thats a problem.
We all know that a backup of software is a copy, but did you know that even running the
software creates a copy of it? Yes, it does.
When you load a program, it goes into your computers memory, and is legally considered a
copy. While the copy does not stay indefinately, it does stay long enough to perform a
certain task, and can and has been looked upon as a form of software piracy, as stupid as
that sounds. (Tysver Software Patents)
BBS (Bulletin Board Systems, small online services run by normal people) Sysops (system
operators) are legally considered responsible for all the files that are available on
their system (Elkin-Koren). While at first this seems like an obvious thing, afterall, it
is their computer, they should know whats on it. However, if you had ever run a BBS
before, which I do, you'd know that its hard, if not impossible to know whats on your
computer. Planet-X, my friend John Morse's BBS, which I co-run, has 50 calls a day. Of
those 50 calls, about 35 of them upload or download software. Neither one of us is
constantly monitoring the system, nor is there a way to make the computer automatically
check to see what happens. Thus, about half of the public files on the BBS we don't know
about.
Lets take a look at an example of BBSs and copyright, and how they oh-so-beautifully
coincide. Sega Ltd., maker of the Sega Genesis and Sega Gamegear, recently sued the
Maphia BBS for making Sega Genesis ROMs publically available in a download section. This
section was a type of digital rental as it is commonly known in the BBS community.
Commercial software publically available for download, on an on-your-honor system, you
had to delete the files after a short period of time (24-48 hours).
Unfortunately for the Maphia BBS, they did not have a disclaimer, stating that the files
must be deleted after a trial period, and thus, Sega was able to sue them for it, as
without the disclaimer, there was no proof that they had used the digital rental system,
and thus it was not fair use, as it could be used for monetary gain by the downloader
(not having to buy the game). Of course, it could be used for that purpose WITH the
disclaimer, but the disclaimer does just that, disclaims the BBS operator of the
responsibilities of that copy of software (Elkin-Koren). Another such case was the case
between Playboy (I think we all know who that is), and the Frena BBS. The public file
areas on the Frena BBS frequently contained image files, and more often than not, they
were adult image files. Well, I don't know exactly how it happened, but Playboy somehow
found out that this BBS had some scanned photos from a Playboy magazine, and because they
have the copyright to all their photos, they were able to sue the operator of the Frena
BBS. The operator had no idea that there were any Playboy images on his system
(Elkin-Koren).
Speaking of image files, they too can be a problem with software protection. Say you've
got an image file that someone had copyrighted. You load it up in a photo-retouching
program, and add a big old goat in the background and paint the sky red. Then you remove
the artists file name. Viola, the picture is now semi-legally copyrighted to you, as it
has been significantly changed from its original, although
I wouldn't recommend going to court over it (Grant 12). All you have to do is change a
very large portion of the image files coding. Technically, darkening or blurring the
image, changing the file format, or interlacing the file changes the file entirely, and
thus, its yours. Sounds too easy? It is.
Copyrights and patents are designed to help the media it protects. But in the case of
technology, its actually hindering it. CD-ROMs contain a lot of information, and are the
perfect media for music. A lesser known media, the Digital Video Disc, or DVD, is much
more versitile, containing 26 times the storage compacity of a CD-ROM, and 11500 times
more than a standard floppy disk, or about 17 gigabytes (the largest hard drives are 9
gigs). However, DVDs are not available to the public. Why? Because of the ease of copying
them. We've all dubbed tapes, its easy to do. However, we often opt for higher quality
originals, because there is always a bit of degradation in the copies (although its very
small now). With DVDs, a copy is exactly that, a copy. No degradation, no reason to buy
an original.
All the big companies are really scared by this technology, because it will take another
five bucks out of their pockets. DVDs would be one of the greatest advancements in the
short history of computers, but because of the shadier uses it could be used for, we'll
never see it. I like to compare it to the Internet, its very useful, but it can be used
for illegal purposes. You be the judge (Ross 134-140). 
Luckily, we may yet someday see DVDs, because several companies are developing copy
protection schemes for them, to stop the casual home hacker/copier. Macrovision, for
instance, is producing hardware for the DVD player that will make them incompatible with
VCRs (the easiest dubbing-to platform, the equivilant of CD to audio tape). It will send
output through the audio/video out ports that when played on a TV, will appear normal,
but when played through a VCR, will have color stripes running sideways across the
screen. This is due to the differences between the ways the two work (Ross 134-140).
So as you can see, current methods of protecting software are a hinderance on the
software industry. The problems outweigh the benefits, but with a new law, the industry
would be able to keep the benefits and minimize any drawbacks. Instead of having to
nitpick over who wrote something that did something similar, it would be back to who
wrote something more powerful than the other guy, and that's what makes the industry
great, competition. Oh, and I'd like to add that I broke copyright law a total of 13
times in the making of this report, when I made a copy of each reference with the school
copying machine (James 16), although it was fair use, so I'm not in any trouble (Ruth).
Bibliography
David Cosgrove The Hare and the Tortoise: Internet and Copyright.
http://www.interaus.net/1995/11/hare.html (1995).
Tad Crawford Internet Copyright Law FAQ. http://www.users.interport.net/~allworth/icl_faq
(1996).
Anne Bilodeau House Bill Would Limit Hyperlinks.
http://www.webweek.com/96May20/nes/netcopy.html (1996).
Richard Raysman et al Computer Law: Internet Copyright Developments.
http://www.brmlaw.com/doclib/complaw196.html (1996).
Del Guercio, Gino. Softwars. World Monitor Oct. 1991: 22-24. Reprinted in Technology 3.
Boca Raton, Florida: SIRS, Inc., 1996: Article 75.
Daniel Grant. Computer Copycats Blur Rights. Christian Science Monitor Oct. 3 1991: 12.
Reprinted in
Technology 3. Boca Raton, Florida: SIRS, Inc., 1996: Article 75.
Daniel A Tysver BitLaw: Internet Linking 
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html (1996).
Daniel A Tysver BitLaw: Internet Software Patents 
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/patent.html (1996).
David Pressman Patent It Yourself http://www.nolo.com/pat/toc.html (1996).
Niva Elkin-Koren Copyright Liability of BBS Operators
http://yu1.yu.edu/csl/journals/aelj/articles/13-2/elkin.html (1995).
Gleick, James. I'll Take the Money, Thanks. New York Times 4 Aug. 1996. 16.
Dukelow, Ruth. The Library Copyright Guide Chelsea, Michigan., 1992.
Ross, Philip E. Cops vs Robbers in Cyberspace. Forbes 9 Sept. 1996. 134-140
Bibliography
Bibliography
David Cosgrove The Hare and the Tortoise: Internet and Copyright.
http://www.interaus.net/1995/11/hare.html (1995).
Tad Crawford Internet Copyright Law FAQ. http://www.users.interport.net/~allworth/icl_faq
(1996).
Anne Bilodeau House Bill Would Limit Hyperlinks.
http://www.webweek.com/96May20/nes/netcopy.html (1996).
Richard Raysman et al Computer Law: Internet Copyright Developments.
http://www.brmlaw.com/doclib/complaw196.html (1996).
Del Guercio, Gino. Softwars. World Monitor Oct. 1991: 22-24. Reprinted in Technology 3.
Boca Raton, Florida: SIRS, Inc., 1996: Article 75.
Daniel Grant. Computer Copycats Blur Rights. Christian Science Monitor Oct. 3 1991: 12.
Reprinted in
Technology 3. Boca Raton, Florida: SIRS, Inc., 1996: Article 75.
Daniel A Tysver BitLaw: Internet Linking 
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html (1996).
Daniel A Tysver BitLaw: Internet Software Patents 
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/patent.html (1996).
David Pressman Patent It Yourself http://www.nolo.com/pat/toc.html (1996).
Niva Elkin-Koren Copyright Liability of BBS Operators
http://yu1.yu.edu/csl/journals/aelj/articles/13-2/elkin.html (1995).
Gleick, James. I'll Take the Money, Thanks. New York Times 4 Aug. 1996. 16.
Dukelow, Ruth. The Library Copyright Guide Chelsea, Michigan., 1992.
Ross, Philip E. Cops vs Robbers in Cyberspace. Forbes 9 Sept. 1996. 134-140