Making copies of your computer software

[Springroll]

Since the other thread was locked before I could post this, I am starting a new thread to share the information.

Q:May I make a copy of software I have purchased so that I may use it on either my office computer or my home computer?

A:The Copyright Act permits you to make a copy of software you purchased for only two reasons. You may make a copy in order to adapt it to your particular computer. You may also make a copy for back-up purposes. This permission is given on condition that the copies are for personal use only and that these copies are destroyed when you cease to be the owner of the purchased software

Taken from http://www.uwo.ca/its/pps/softethics.html

Hope this clears things up for those that were as confused as I was.

 

[muskrat89]

Springroll - I have no clue whether that information is accurate or not. You may want to note that the source you cited is from 1990

 

[Springroll]

How about this link then. It was published Mar 05:

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/internetandsecurity/2.4.45_playitstraightavoidpiratedsoftware.asp

Laurence says computer users are guilty of software piracy whether they make a single copy for a friend or many copies for resale. "You can make one backup disk for yourself, but you can't share it with friends and family," she explains. This complies with the Canadian Copyright Act, which says it's illegal to knowingly distribute, rent or import for sale any illegal copies

 

[the 48th regulator]

Copyright Act

This may be of help,

dileas

tess

 

[pronto]

Good Lord Lady. Give this up. Your other thread was locked because of your "i won't give up until I get the last word" crap.

Using the internet (admittedly a really poor source for legal interpretation and precedent) to prove an unprovable point is becoming tedious and tiresome. You need to get a new hobby. The end user license agreement (EULA) is what governs your rights under the purchase of the intellectual property in front of you. The Copyright Act to which Tess referred you is not the official source of information either. It is actually the Canada Gazette. It says "It is an infringement of copyright for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner of the copyright has the right to do" That would be the author(s) of the software you purchase. The EULA outlines that consent.

You are NOT sharing information, Springroll, you are indulging in an attempt to "prove yourself right". Guess what, you are wrong. No one can avoid their obligations under the EULA which will tell you what you may and may not do.

Mods - you should probably lock this thread too.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I was following the Springroll's threads with interest and found her questions interesting. Pronto puts forth the idea that the only binding instructions are the End User Agreement provided with each piece of software.  I am still confused, however - the question originally was whether or not making copies of software for personal use was legal or not.  Is this really only covered by the End User Agreement?  Is there really not any binding legislation as far as copyright goes?  I was getting the impression from pronto that copying software (to the extent of, say, having a copy on one's desktop as well as one's laptop) even for personal use is illegal unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Is this correct?

It seemed springroll was producing some interesting references that no one was refuting (other than shouting her down).

Would it be possible to get a civil answer, as this is a question of great interest to me.

TIA

 

[Island Ryhno]

http://www.canfli.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=FAQ&file=index&myfaq=yes&id_cat=2

That's an interesting link, their sources are in the pdf at the bottom of the page. Also it is noted that there was a new ruling in Apr 2004. This is in regards to file sharing etc.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/resc/html_bkup/july52004.html

Article about the judges ruling.

http://www.trytel.com/~pbkerr/computer.html  RE, software:

Copyright
Copyright law in Canada is one of the principal means of protecting computer software in Canada. Canadian copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act, which protects original literary, artistic, musical and dramatic works. Computer software is protected in Canada as a literary work.

One of the significant rights granted to the owner of Canadian copyright in a work is the exclusive right to reproduce the work, or any substantial part of the work, in any material form whatever.

For example, the owner of copyright in a piece of computer software has the right to stop others from making copies of the software, or any substantial part of the software, whether the infringer makes the infringing copy by copying the software on to a floppy disk, hard disk, CD ROM, or by printing out a hard copy of the software.

(The owner of an authorized and legitimate copy of a piece of software may reproduce a single copy of the software, for backup purposes, provided that the single backup copy is destroyed immediately once the person ceases to be the owner of the authorized copy of the software).

In addition to acquiring the exclusive right to copy the work, the owner of copyright in a work also receives an entire bundle of rights, some of which are specific to the type of work in question. In the case of computer software, this bundle of rights includes the right to rent the software to others, and the corresponding right to restrain others from renting the software.

Canadian copyright comes into existence automatically, and in the case of software, it comes into existence at the time the software was created and continues until the end of the calendar year in which the author of the software dies (regardless of whether the author has sold or assigned the copyright in the software or not) and continues for an additional period of 50 years following the end of that calendar year.

"Moral" rights are also protected under Canadian copyright law. Moral rights in Canada include the right of the author of a piece of software to be associated with the software by name or pseudonym, and the right to remain anonymous. They also include the author's right to the integrity of the software (that is, the author's right to stop the software from being distorted, mutilated or modified, to the prejudice of the author's honour or reputation, or from being used in association with a product, service, cause or institution).

Moral rights remain with the author of a piece of software, even where the software, or the copyright in the software, has been sold or assigned; regardless of whether the author created the software in the employ of someone else, or created it under contract, or otherwise.

Moral rights in software continue to exist until the end of the calendar year in which the author of the software dies (regardless of whether the author has sold or assigned the copyright in the software or not) and continues for an additional period of 50 years following the end of that calendar year.

Copyright in software may be assigned or licensed to others. All assignments and licenses of copyright must be in writing to be valid. The mere transfer of physical possession of a copy of piece of software does not thereby include an assignment of copyright in the software.

While moral rights may not be assigned, these rights may be waived by the author, in whole or in part. A mere assignment or license of copyright in a piece of software does not, in and of itself, amount to a waiver of the moral rights in the software.

It is therefore strongly recommended that, where possible, all assignments and licenses of copyright include a written waiver of the author's moral rights in the software, and that all employees who participate in the creation of a piece of software sign a written waiver of their moral rights in the software.

The software should be marked with a notice in the following form: "© Smith and Company, 1996, All Rights Reserved". That is, the notice should display the copyright symbol ©, followed by the name of the owner of copyright, followed by the year in which the software was published, followed by the statement "All Rights Reserved". This notice is to be displayed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of a claim of copyright in the software.

Copyright may be registered in Canada at the Canadian Copyright Office located in Ottawa/Hull. While registration of copyright in software is not required in Canada, registration does provide significant benefits to the copyright owner, and is recommended.

When registering copyright in Canada, there is no need to file a copy of the software with the Canadian Copyright Office. In fact, the Canadian Copyright Office will return any software which anyone attempts to file with them! It is therefore possible to obtain a copyright registration in Canada without having to disclose any of the confidential information which may be contained in the software (although you will have to disclose the software's title).

I do not know the dates on this last piece. Hope this helps with what you were looking for Micheal.

 

[Strike]

After reading that highlighted portion from the last post I'm sure there is a young woman -- and future engineer -- who is smiling. 

Maybe since someone else posted the same info pronto might finally belive it is true.

 

[pronto]

Hi Rhyno:
Looks very much like an extract from an Ottawa lawyer named Kerr. He is quite knowledgable, and I have read some of his other stuff at http://www.trytel.com/~pbkerr/copyright.html

Nope , I am not smiling... This is actually my business - and I've been in it since getting out of the Forces...

However, If you were, for instance, to check the actual EULA of say, Microsoft XP for Home at http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20XP_Home_English_1f1fecd8-e4c2-4340-9c25-167c35073352.pdf You would see that Microsoft does not grant you permission to make a back up copy. We've noticed a trend in the industry lately for intellectual property to be protected this way as well. Users may not make copies even for backup - they can call, and get a re-license if needed. There is a suit going on right now, being watched by the industry quite closely, where a manufacturer is fighting a very similar case - an organisation made copies, and the manufacturer wants the right to come in and inspect all networks to confirm licensing.

Interestingly - MS says you may put your copy on a server for multiple installations - but you have to have licenses for each time your server copy is accessed.

In your quote from Kerr you state "the owner of copyright in a piece of computer software has the right to stop others from making copies of the software, or any substantial part of the software, whether the infringer makes the infringing copy by copying the software on to a floppy disk, hard disk, CD ROM, or by printing out a hard copy of the software" This is very true, and important. The EULA often will expressly stop others from making copies of software or substantial parts!.

Now, realistically, MS is not likely to come after a home user, but you really should be honest about these things. Also - just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD... I remember teaching that to a bunch of newbies in 1979... I think they remembered the lesson - two are lawyers, and one is a police officer.

Anyway, I wouldn't want anyone reading these threads to think it is OK to take someone's intellectual property without their permission. Always check the EULA, and if needed, just send an email to the author(s) or their company to get express permission. Just to be safe.

Long story short, my industry is cracking down more and more on copies and piracy, and you just have to be careful. The internet is full of apocryphal stories, and legal opinions are like a$$holes - every one's got one. (sorry old, and bad joke). I get my advice from a lawyer not the internet.

Wouldn't that be interesting - someone in a company getting an audit from MS or Apple pleading  - hey I read on army.ca that it is OK.

Anyway - everyone just be careful out there

Out.

 

[Springroll]

Some awesome links have been produced, and I fully intend on going through them tomorrow when I have a bit more time.

Now, about Microsoft.
The link I had posted was from their website, http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/internetandsecurity/2.4.45_playitstraightavoidpiratedsoftware.asp
and it also states that you are allowed to make one back up copy.

Why are they giving contridictory information out to their consumers?
If we are not allowed to make a copy due to EULA, then why say we can on their website?

I am going to email them and see if I can get a response about it and will post the email and the reply here, if you are all interested?

 

[48Highlander]

As I told Springroll earlier, there are differences between criminal law and civil law.  While it may not be a violation of CRIMINAL law for you as a user to make a copy for personal use, you could very well be held liable in a CIVIL court.  As has been pointed out, Copyright law allows for the duplication of software for personal use, however, if the EULA, which is a binding contract to which you agree when you purchase the software, states that you may not make a copy for ANY reason, then the creator/owner of that software could sue you in civil court and they'd win.  Maybe that's what Pronto is getting confused about?

 

[Strike]

When I bought my laptop it came with 2 disks, the purpose of which was product recovery.  The directions clearly state that these disks are to "back-up" all the programs present on my computer.

It seems that there is some contradictory info, when I am hearing that we can't even make a back-up copy, but the computer manufacturers are saying you can, and that it is in fact recomended.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Thanks to pronto for the detailed responses, and for the discussion by all concerned very enlightening.

I agree that piracy is a huge concern.  It is to the point no one thinks twice about buying software or DVDs that are obviously pirated - usually by people who can afford the real thing anyway.  Hurts us all in the end.

 

[pronto]

Pronto's not confused - pronto tells all his employees to read the EULA and know what they're agreeing to. Pronto recommends you never get legal advice from the internet. Pronto recommends that you call a lawyer and/or the authors to determine what you can and cannot do. Pronto has fired employees for making copies of certain drawing programs when the EULA says they cannot. Pronto understands Civil law and Criminal law (hell - Common Law and Civil Law, even Tort.). But you know, Pronto is not a lawyer and would never presume to offer legal advice - merely business advice, common sense, political advice and government advice - all things he knows.

But Hey - Pronto says you do what you want, and he promises to stop referring to himself in the third person as it is really irritating him...

See you all in the funny papers, I'm off to have a tea and finger sandwich with Kincanucks.

 

[48Highlander]

When I bought my laptop it came with 2 disks, the purpose of which was product recovery.   The directions clearly state that these disks are to "back-up" all the programs present on my computer.

It seems that there is some contradictory info, when I am hearing that we can't even make a back-up copy, but the computer manufacturers are saying you can, and that it is in fact recomended.

Tape backup devices exist for the same purpose.  Every business that relies heavily on computer usage has, at the very least, a tape backup machine which creates nightly copies of their servers.  Some only back up important data, whereas others back up all software as well.  When I worked in IT we had one of our consultants accidentaly destroy a database containing some 6 months of work.  Thankfuly, all data had been backed up the night before, so we only lost a days work; otherwise, we would have had 6 months go down the tubes.  Backing up your data is a neccessity for evey business.  Backing up your servers entirely is likewise a neccesity for ISP's, web-hosts,  and other businesses which rely on being able to constantly change their server configuration.


Another example of legitimate copying of software:

In order to upgrade 90 laptops to Windows NT 4.0 (yeah, this was a while back) plus MS Office, Visio, and a few custom apps, I had two options:

1)  Spend 4 hours per computer configuring and testing the setup, for a total of 360 man hours, or 9 weeks.
2)  Spend 4 hours configuring the first computer, create a backup CD of the entire harddrive (which is the same as the product recovery CD's that came with your computer), make 3 copies of that CD, and then use those 4 CD's to copy the contents of the first harddrive to every other hard-drive.  At 45 minutes per computer, and 4 going at once, this took a grand total of 16 hours, or two days.  Three including actually going and buying the software I needed to do it.

There was nothing illegal about me making those copies:  the company had valid licenes for all 90 of those machines, as well as 90 copies of each of the software packages.  This "cloning" of computer harddrives is also a standard industry practice, and is perfectly legal as long as you don't exceed the number of licences you own, or give the CD's to others.  Bottom line, despite what Pronto may beleive, creating backups of your software isn't illegal.  Depepnding on the EULA, it MAY set you up for a civil-suit, however:

a)  Most EULA's do not prohibit this type of copying.
b)  Even those that do (and I can't remember ever seing one) are unlikely to ever enforce it.

So, long story short, unless you're a large business, don't worry about it.  And if you're a large business, pay a lawyer to read the EULA and translate it into english for you.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There is also a difference between backing up\ copying installed programs\ data, which is normally allowed, and making copies of the installation disks. Most ELUA's allow you to make a copy of your installation disk, but it's only for use on the original machine(s) it's licensed to, in the event you've wrecked your original disk.

 

[NavComm]

Good gravy. Springroll you certainly are tenacious. Just can't take no for an answer.

When you originally posted that your husband was using tiger as his o/s and ended the comment with a 'hehehe' I merely asked if you were inferring by that 'hehehe' that he had pirated the software. Your response was really double-speak. Not a real denial. Rather meek compared to your usual "how dare you" type responses.

Now it seems you are trying to backpeddle. Maybe you are hoping that if you throw enough of your soon to be infamous barrack barrister talk around we'll forget the fact that you implied that you are running an illegal o/s on your home computer and then openly admitted you make illegal copies of software all the time.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Arguing with everyone on this board who is trying to help you is getting tiresome. I notice that once you are corrected by a mod you generally post 'thank you for that' and then carry on opening more threads to advance your ideas and start a new argument based on the closed thread.

Like I said before, if a thread is closed there is a good reason for that. So don't keep opening a new one just so you can have the last bloody word!

 

[Strike]

NavComm,

Actually, it is a good thing she opened this thread because, if you were to read through it instead of just looking up what new posts Spingroll has made that you can comment on, you would see that some of us are actually learning a few things and working some stuff out.

I don't see Springroll being the problem in this thread, I see it being certain people who come in and bash everything she has to say without actually contributing to what ANY of us has said.   If you reread what some people have posted (assuming you have read it to begin with) -- like 48th (sorry to drag you into this) -- you would see that there is some truth in what she is saying.

So, if you aren't going to contribute, and are just going to flame, take it to a PM and stop dragging everyone else down.

Adendum:
In fact, upon rereading this particular thread, Springroll does not once flame anyone, but provides several links to back up her thoughts.  Looks like she started this thread with the intention of NOT getting into an argument.
Why can't we all just get along??

 

[NavComm]

Strike, I did read what others had posted and it seems to me their posts were answered. Pronto answered it quite well and I don't see a need to add to what he had to say.

I take no issue with people asking the questions. They are legitimate questions but were already answered in the previous thread on this topic. A quick read of that thread would have answered those questions satisfactorily.

The issue I take is with Springroll constantly moving to another thread everytime she doesn't get the last word. She's posted links to out-dated information, made statments of fact that are actually just her opinion (and incorrect many times) and then argues with other posters when they disagree or question her. It's becoming quite a chore to bypass her posts and I am concerned that newcomers may take her advice as solid when in fact it's quite the opposite.

Sorry if you took offense to my previous post.

 

[Strike]

It seems that Rhyno and 48th have also backed up her argument (to an extent).  But since that is the case we should ignore that as well?

Personally, I didn't think pronto ansered satisfactorily, since I still had to ask the question regarding my two back-up disks.

As for her arguing or disagreeing, she hasn't done it yet on this thread.  Cut her some slack.