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