[Info-vax] vax vms licenses

[Don Baccus]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 5:06:15 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 11:53 AM, Don Baccus wrote: 
> > "Legal department may have a policy of pursuing all copyright 
> > infringements for the signal value." 
> > 
> > In the US, at least, you can only recover actual damages in a 
> > copyright infringement suit (enhanced with punitive damages based on 
> > those if you have registered a copyright).
> That "actual" damage has sometimes been set pretty high.
> > There's also the notion 
> > of "fair use" and the fact that there are some court rulings in the 
> > US that support the notion that using software that is only protected 
> > by copyright for personal use is "fair use".
> I would not count on courts allowing software copying as long as it is 
> for personal use - that is not the common interpretation.
> > Copyright law is unlike trademark law where you need to pursue 
> > infringement or risk losing trademark protection. This is one of the 
> > factors that leads to companies forcing small, insignificant, local 
> > businesses to stop using look-alike logos or similar names to their 
> > trademark protected logos, names, etc. Many people don't understand 
> > that legally, once they become aware of the use, they must try to 
> > stop it.
> Even though they do not lose rights by not pursuing a copyright case 
> then they may still do for the signal value. 
> 
> Bank robbery does not become legal if shoplifting cases were 
> all dismissed, but some think that going hard on the the small 
> cases help deter the big cases. 
> 
> Note that it is irrelevant whether that deterrence actual happen 
> or not - the relevant part is that some believe it and act accordingly. 
> 
> Arne

"That "actual" damage has sometimes been set pretty high"

If the license cost is high, then yes, the actual damages would be set high.
And might be tripled by the court if punitive damages are awarded to the
copyright holder.  If you start distributing it then actual damages grows,
of course.

"I would not count on courts allowing software copying as long as it is
for personal use - that is not the common interpretation."

Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted
material.  You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but
that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing
someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes.

Believe it or not, there is actually a reason for software licenses, and the
weak protections provided by copyright are one very large component of
that.

Of course, if the software is access-protected and you circumvent that to
grab and make a copy this, you run afoul of the DMCA, even if your actual use
afterwards passes the Fair Use test.  This law was passed because of the
weakness of copyright protection but is draconian and went far beyond the
needs of reasonable protection.  And penalties are steep.  But DRM steps
have to be taken by the copyright holder for the DMCA to apply.

It is the avoidance of the licensing process and the forging of license keys which
is the serious side of this. 

Meanwhile there's an entire organization of people who seek to preserve software
for historical reasons or so people can research/study the software devoted to
establishing codes of conduct and a legal framework for doing so.  Not just
simple copyright but licensing restrictions as well.

https://cmsimpact.org/code/fair-use-software-preservation/