FREE ESSAY ON SOFTWARE COPYRIGHT

SOFTWARE COPYRIGHT

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 foil 
sandwitched 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 u! 
p 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, thats 
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. Thankf! 
ully, 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, disc! 
laims 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 thats 
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
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.