BTW In another time and life I've been a Sys Admin, Developmental Analyst
(fancy name for programmer), and project manager. I'm also a published
author and photographer so I do have a passing acquaintance with copyrights
> For copyright, it makes NO difference whether your doing it for profit
> or not. A wholesale copy is an infringement. The profit would only come
> in when setting damages.
Not necessiaarily. Wholesale copies (IE Complete copies) are permissible.
They are called backups and that falls under fair use. I can copy any
program which I hold a license or manual that is copyrighted and put it in
the file cabinet "just-in-case" the original is destroyed so I will still
have a useful copy of the document or soft ware. Backups are specifically
listed under fair use. OTOH, I may not sell, give, or even loan such copies
to others and for software I may only use one copy at a time unless
otherwise stated in the license. That's not much of a problem for a scanned
or photocopied manual as I can only handle one at a time anyway.
Of course the RIAA and MPAA got around this by getting sympathetic law
makers to make it illegal to get around copy protection and then copy
protected all of their products making a joke out of fair use.
> For patents, there ARE some exceptions.. I'm not real clear on the
> details, but there is an exception if you are duplicating a patented
> thing for the purposes of understanding it or making improvements, and
> I'm pretty sure that there are a whole raft of rules around exactly what
> you can do.
With most patents it'd cost more to make the thing your self than to
purchase a mass produced item.
OTOH you have to be careful with patents which are *supposed* to be for
unique designs. Quite a few every day items that have been in use for years
have ended up patented. The new patent laws which now say for first appled
instead of first invented or used are a real step backwards. The company I
worked for stuck with a propritary process for over 40 years before someone
else figured out how to make the product. The "someone else" applied for a
patend and then wanted rectroactive payment for their process. It was
thrown out of court. Under the new, proposed law they could have gone after
us for "Billions" of dollars
TowerTalk mailing list