Re: It's so special?

From: Michael S. Hines <MSHINES[_at_]freh-02.adpc.purdue.edu>
Date: 9 May 94 08:38:40 EST

Buford,

First the disclaimer...I am not a lawyer...

There is a major difference between tangible personal property, and license rights to use.

For example... in Indiana the statue on theft reads in part that theft is depriving someone else of their rights to use their property...

This sounds noble and just.

However, when you apply it to software copying...there is depriving others of use if you copy.

The state laws caught on to this with other media...so copying video and audio is also listed explicitly in the law.

The problem is that the law has not yet caught up with software protection. Consequently, someone who unauthorized copies software is not committing theft...

It's just a case where technology has outrun the laws...most of our laws are reactionary (esp. case law which by definition is decided AFTER something happens). Very few laws are designed or thought out well enough ahead of time to be of a preventative nature.

Software is so special, because its just now drawing the attention of lawmakers (...consider for example the recent hearings on copyright law changes due to the Information Superhighway....yet the Internet has been around for years..)

Points to ponder on a Monday morning....

---

Internet:  mshines[_at_]ia.purdue.edu      |  Michael S. Hines
Bitnet:    michaelh[_at_]purccvm           |  Sr. Information Systems Auditor
Purdue WIZARD Mail: MSHINES           |  Purdue University
GTE Net Voice: (317) 494-5845         |  1065 Freehafer Hall
GTE Net FAX:   (317) 496-1814         |  West Lafayette, IN 47907-1065
CompuServe: 73240,1631                |
America On-Line: mysterios            |




>Date:     Fri, 6 May 1994 19:45:20 - 0400

>Reply-to:      cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org

>From:          terrell[_at_]sugar.neosoft.com (Buford Terrell)

>To:            Multiple recipients of list <cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org>

>Subject:       Re: It's so special?

>
>>> So, what's the difference between repoing a car or any other
>>> tangible item (including those used in business) and stopping
>>> software use for lack of payment. Either way because you didn't
>>> pay you can't use the item. Cuttting off software use sounds a
>>> lot like repossesion. And repossession law is a novel concept??
>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>> Mike Winkelman
>>> <mlwinkelman[_at_]dow.com>
>
>
>The major difference is that repossession is a remedy to make the
>seller whole: he has the car to resale or to use. Repossession is
>not a remedy for breach; it's more like a rescission.
>
>With a software time bomb, the seller is not making himself whole; he
>is merely punishing the buyer. There's no fear that the collateral
>will be hidden, sold or destroyed; there's no emergency situation
>requiring fast unilateral action. The software situation is merely
>a breach of contracts action for damages. Special remedies of any kind
>are out of place here.
>
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Buford C. Terrell What I don't know
> Professor of Law isn't nearly as
> South Texas College of Law dangerous as
> 1303 San Jacinto, Houston, TX 77002 what I think I know
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Received on Mon May 09 1994 - 13:38:55 GMT