On 5/20/2014 9:09 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:On 5/19/2014 8:17 AM, Richard Hector wrote:On 20/05/14 00:14, Jerry Stuckle wrote:On 5/19/2014 7:58 AM, Richard Hector wrote:[...] Actually I had a similar problem many years ago - I was working with a perfectly legal but rather obsolete version of SCO Xenix, which had an activation mechanism that was no longer supported. I would have liked to reinstall the system (and was also at risk of damaging it), and had the tape (!), but the activation service was no longer available. The software in that case was still copyright, but (or at least my client) was still perfectly entitled to use it, but technically prevented. RichardI don't know the terms of the license, but it is perfectly valid for a company to put a time or other limit in a license. Your client may or may not have been entitled to continue to use it. But if the client were able to legally use it, I would think the current copyright owner would be obliged to provide an alternate activation mechanism. Getting them to do it may be difficult, though.SCO Xenix? Current copyright owner? May be difficult? For your reading pleasure, Jerry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group
I'm familiar with SCO - in fact, probably much more that you are, since I was around and active in in computers when they first formed.
And no, it would not be hard to find out who owns the copyright. A simple check at the copyright office will show it. If that doesn't, it will be documented in the court papers who got the assets.
Not hard at all. Shouldn't take someone knowledgeable more than a few hours at most.
And you may be interested in this product of the rabble which you think opposes you:
http://www.groklaw.net/
What about it? Nothing new in there.
And in the case where the copyright has elapsed? The main point, rather than my additional comment? RichardAre you saying the only copy in the whole world is protected by DRM? I highly doubt that... And if it is, that would mean it was created since DRM went into effect.Hmm. Are anti-copying provisions that pre-date the DMCA not considered by you and your lawyer to be DRM?
No, they are not. And even if they were - for a registered copyright, an unprotected copy must still be included with the copyright application.
Which means the copyright won't expire for 75 years or more. By that time, anything computer-related will be so obsolete it will only be of interest to paleontologists. And other works (i.e. music, literature) will have been available in other media. In fact, in the United States, to copyright something you have to provide a copy of the material to the Copyright Office. So there is always at least one copy of something available. But can you show where that is occurring now? If not, I think you're looking for a problem which doesn't exist.Did you read what Richard said?
Yes, and my statement stands. You are trying to create a problem where one does not exist. Why would you be against someone protecting their intellectual property?