Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mhuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!wivax!linus!allegra!eagle!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxm!mhuxd!cwc
From: cwc@mhuxd.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Copyright
Message-ID: <74@mhuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Jun-83 10:06:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxd.74
Posted: Thu Jun  2 10:06:58 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jun-83 00:56:03 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 27


I have been intimately involved with the Copyright Law of 1977
(which took effect 1/1/78) from the point of view of one who had/has
to write/maintain systems to account for and pay royalties on the
photocopying activities at Bell Labs.  Believe me when I tell you
that I have read, re-read and had lawyers explain to me that law
until I am sure of only one thing: at this point, the law means
exactly what your lawyers say it means, no more, no less.  As was
pointed out by one of BTL's more up-front lawyers, the law really
has no teeth until someone is sued and the meaning of the law is
decided in court (I believe the term is "becomes part of case law").

Well, this is 1983, and there still is little "case law" applicable
to the Copyright Law of 1977, no less the more recent legislative
"clarifications" for software.  There is a suit in progress which
(hopefully) will establish precedent for systematic photocopying,
but to my knowledge, the only computer related cases have been very
narrowly defined in such areas as whether one manufacturer copying
(stealing) another's RAM mask is a violation if the originator
forgot to paint a (c) on it.  Basically, I think the legal
profession would just as soon avoid software for a few years
until there are some judges who have more than a "Time" magazine
understanding of what computing is all about.

	Still utterly confused in Murray Hill,

			Chip