Thread: Copyright breaches - Be alert for Ron

Before you open the Windows package - it spells out that this is a one off and cannot be exploited.
How many plans are sent out saying make one and then destroy the plan?

Originally Posted by Linden Hardy

Windows package -

cannot be exploited.
Is that why they are forever bombarding my computer with fixes for exploits,

Originally Posted by Linden Hardy

Before you open the Windows package - it spells out that this is a one off and cannot be exploited.
How many plans are sent out saying make one and then destroy the plan?

All the boat plans I've ever worked off spelt out very clearly that you were licensed to make one boat only. No requirement to destroy the plans afterwards as they were yours to keep for reference. There's a distinction between the physical plans and the intellectual property. You buy the plans, but not the actual intellectual property.

Mick

But in the case of the boat, and maybe the house, aren't the designs trademarked? (Or whatever it's called, the owner of the IP has registered it and shelled out the fee) So it's possibly a different kettle of fish.

Originally Posted by Scissors

But in the case of the boat, and maybe the house, aren't the designs trademarked? (Or whatever it's called, the owner of the IP has registered it and shelled out the fee) So it's possibly a different kettle of fish.

Copy right is copy right.

What I am typing here is copy righted, but I agreed to the terms of the forum when I signed up and handed all copy rights to His Highness Neil..

Al

No, copyright is not copyright.

EDIT: In as much as the plans in question, are in and of themselves, protected by copyright. But to 'protect' the actual object that the plans create then the design must be registered.

There are a couple if instances discussed above that probaly have nothing to do with coppyright as originay raised.

Building of licenced designs has little to do with copyright of publicly published material. Those documents are only distributed to people who have AGREED to be bound by the terms of a contract which has nothing to do with publicly published coppyright.

Software is treated completely different and has specific coppyright provisions AND is almost always distributed under licence which imposed additional contract conditions. Certainly most software is not publicly published.

The builder issue may be a case where the customer had been to a designer who provided material under a contract that laid obligations on the customer.
Thus they took design that were not publicly published and they had no rights to and got someone else to build it...... yep they will get zipped.


If I publish a picture of a house in Vogue and some one coppies it.... I cant do a thing about it.

The devil is in the detail........ well in the contract.

There are a lot of...... hopefull types who will try and bluff some sort of obligation from a reader of a book or magazine where the reader has not agreed to any such contract. You cant agree to a contract by just buying something......... No this isn't what you do with software.

If you ahve a contract...... yep you have a right or obligation.
The automatic rights and obligations under copyright as pertaining to publicly published material are very specific and limited.

remember...... If you publish it it's GONE.

cheers