8 ms·
Software vendor argues that it has copyright in output of its CAD software
- karmicthreat 10y agoDefendant in this case probably knows and purposely uses Chinese contractors to get around licensing expensive software. So not exactly someone to cheer for. But plaintiff also wants to set a pretty bad precedent.
- icebraining 10y agoWhat's pathetic is that they actually did download the software, which will probably come back to bite them. Sounds like we can hope this is a case in which everybody loses :) Well, except the lawyers, of course.
- macmac 10y agoThey appear to argue that the download was some sort of trial copy or at least that they thought it was. It appears undisputed that they never used the software.
- kmichaels 10y agoI think they likely just look at the sub-contracting costs and see that the Chinese contractors are massively cheaper then don't ask too many questions. It's pretty much business as usual to pirate CAD software in China so they probably knew what was happening though.
- zokier 10y agoThis is actually surprisingly interesting case. While I think most would agree that when software does purely "algorithmic processing" then the output would not be considered derivative work. But increasingly software suites include various templates and content libraries. When the output is then a composition of those templates and library content then I'd agree that there is an argument to be made that such output could be considered derivative work.
- macmac 10y agoI agree that the question is interesting and the result in other cases (e.g. code generation tools) might surprise many, but this doesn't appear to be a obvious example of output being a derivative work.
- maxerickson 10y agoThe other side of it is that refusing to offer reasonable licenses to users of the software will tend to cause them to stop being users.
- brianwawok 10y agoOnly in a market with competition. Especially healthy competition. I don't know CAD market that well, but for example my dad did it for 20 years and only liked 1 program. Doubt he could have switched easily with so much work in one format.
- segmondy 10y agoBy that line of reasoning, your compile's output is derivative work of the creative effort of the compiler writers.
- aseipp 10y agoIt has little to do with "creative output" and more to do with the license surrounding those components you use, and the components your "final product" uses. You seem to be insinuating it's ridiculous to apply this sort of "derivative work, by-way-of-library" logic to compilers, but it absolutely happens all the time. It happens especially with compiler-style things, in fact. Just as the most obvious example, several large GPL libraries, parts of GCC such as libgcc, and more, run under the GPL linking exception -- this exception to GPL-licensed libraries means that programs using those libraries directly are not subject to the rules of the GPL, while normally they would be (under the "derivative work" logic). For example, every C program compiled by GCC links against libgcc, which is GPL. But you are not implicitly put under the terms of the GPL, just because you used GCC to compile something, and it happened to use libgcc. libgcc explicitly exempts this use case. So, why does this exception exist, and why is it explicitly stated? Precisely because, just like those "template content libraries" from some random vendor, GCC links your code against components and libraries that have clear licensing terms. The licensing terms of those libraries absolutely impacts the licensing terms of the final, produced work, unless stated otherwise. (Have you ever noticed how even commercial software is required to maintain a copy of the BSD license? Well, it's legally required to, if you use BSD software. It says so, right on the tin.) This isn't some kind of legal 12-dimensional chess, it's a fairly obvious bump you encounter quite quickly. This is obviously especially important for compiler-style things, since in reality, their whole purpose is to generate "derivative works" of all sorts. Guile also has a GPL linking exception for some similar reasons, IIRC. In all honesty, to me, the weird thing about this case isn't that they're making claims about "derivative works" or whatever, with regards to libraries. It's weird to me that they even need to make the argument at all -- most of the time, with a lot of software, the licensing situation surrounding components like this (and how you can use them) is pretty clear. It seems odd it wouldn't be strictly clear already, in a way.
- macmac 10y agoThis case is with the Ninth Circuit on appeal. If you are interested in how courts conduct oral arguments in cases like this, there is a video recording available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000010345 http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 10y agoI like how they really grill the lawyer of the plaintiff. Frankly, her explanations - especially when trying to come up with a test to distinguish their software from Photoshop - are pitiful.
- macmac 10y agoIt gets slightly better later when she explains how some of the elements of the output is controlled by the CAD software, but it is still a very weak argument.
- icebraining 10y agoThat still doesn't distinguish it from PS, though; just look at Content-Aware Fill.
- macmac 10y agoAs I mentioned, weak argument.
- a_humean 10y agoThe defendant seems pretty scummy and deserving to be held accountable, but the plaintiff's strategy seems dead in the water. Judges are giving both a very good grilling.
- 10y ago
- arca_vorago 10y agoOnce again the dangers of proprietary software in the businesplace raise their heads. I wish people with the ability would work on contributing more to the open source cad projects, because at one point suffering under autodesks draconionan and expensive licensing I tried to get a business to start switching but the open source stuff simply isn't up to snuff in most cases.
- gaius 10y agoHow do you mean danger?? The body of the article is considerably less hysterical than the title.
- macmac 10y agoWhat is hysterical about the title i.e. "When is the output of a copyright-protected software program itself protected by copyright?" ?. Seems very appropriated and balanced.
- arca_vorago 10y agoI mean you won't find GNU projects doing stuff like this, but only in proprietary land do you find companies who think it's ok to copyright output. (which is a symptom of the bigger issue of culture around non-free software in general) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOutput http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOutput
- E6300 10y agoActually, the output of Bison is GPL'd on the same grounds as presented in this case, that a significant portion of it includes code from Bison itself. You can't link and distribute a Bison-generated parser with a non-GPL parser generator (for other kinds of programs, the license contains an exception that allows linking).
- wtetzner 10y agoThat was the case, but now there's an exception: http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditions.html http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Condition...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- charonn0 10y agoThis seems like a bad idea for the vendor. Now all of their customers will have to evaluate the legal risks of merely using the software.
- mortdeus 10y agoThat's nonesense. This is like somebody claiming they own copyright on your book or code because you used their text editor.
- danjoc 10y agoAh, so you're familiar with iBooks then ;) http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-mind-bogglingly-greedy-and-evil-license-agreement/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-mind-bogglingly-greedy-a...
- guitarbill 10y agoIt's not quite that. If the output of the program was a standard text file, then no, because nothing of the program was copied. If for example the output of the program included certain fonts or graphics (e.g. PDF), those are still copyrighted. To use those fonts, you'd need a licence, in this case the same licence you need for the program.
- alok-g 10y agoMany EULAs explicitly include a clause stating that the vendor does not hold any rights over the output of the program. (A common example is when you use a compiler to create a binary. Read what the license says.) IANAL.
- macmac 10y agoAnd many do not. I have negotiated software licenses for 15+ years and had to fix this issues many times. Just as many software licenses explicitly only license object code, but the licensed product turns out to contain quite a bit of source code, which if not addressed the licensee is not allowed to use (copy).
- bonzini 10y agoIf you pirate the software, you certainly aren't agreeing to any EULA. It's actually an interesting case, more than you could think as a first impression.
- joelthelion 10y agoSoftware vendor loses all of its customers.
- ssalazar 10y agoFor niche CAD tools theres usually only one or two games in town and a lot of stickiness with old files, production workflows, user skill with the tool, etc. Switching to a different solution may not be an option. Unless they start suing all of their customers, they're probably fine.
- bonzini 10y agoParent didn't read the article?
- jwilk 10y agoFrom the Hacker News Guidelines[0]: > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- siculars 10y agoIn other news... Bic pen, makers of ubiquitous writing implements, claims copyright over all writings made with said implements. Where does it end?
- ris 10y agoIf we're asking "should a user be able to continue using files created with a program beyond the point that they are paying from that program?" we're not that far from the practical effects of such a decision already. I'd wager that a good 90% of the world's graphical/artistic material is locked up in Adobe-proprietary formats for which the only practical editing software has moved to a cloud licensing model. Dispute with Adobe? Say goodbye to all your company's assets...
- ikeboy 10y agoWell they can still be edited in desktop versions, which have licenses that have been fully paid for and can't be revoked.
- abrowne 10y agoFor Adobe, 'cloud' = 'subscription'. The apps are desktop versions, but they can't be "fully paid for".
- ikeboy 10y agoIf you bought a desktop program before they moved to the subscription model, it was fully paid for. You can still buy physical copies online, see e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Adobe-CS6-Design-Premium-Windows/dp/B01C7JT5Z2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486244282&sr=8-2&keywords=adobe+cs6 https://www.amazon.com/Adobe-CS6-Design-Premium-Windows/dp/B...
- macmac 10y agoWhich is a workable solution until the subscription based products start outputting formats that are not backwards compatible.
- Animats 10y agoThe company is accused of pirating the software. If they had it lawfully, they wouldn't be in this fix. The question here is whether the program outputs from a pirated program are free of copyright restrictions.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 10y agoNo, the fact that they "pirated" the software is a separate claim, since the output files were not produced by their copy of the software. They would be in this fix even if they had never "pirated" it.
- blhack 10y agoSoftware vendor is wrong.
- GnarfGnarf 10y agoWhat I take from the description is that the defendant, Unigate Enterprise (UE), used the software (SDS/2) to produce drawings for its Chinese contractors. The drawings are in a proprietary file format that can only be viewed by SDS/2 (written by Design Data Corporation (DDC)). Chinese contractors use illegal copies of SDS/2 to view the drawings. So yes, the Chinese have broken the law. It's Unigate's problem that they chose software that produces files that can't be openly shared. In claiming that the output is copyrighted, DDC seems to be resorting to a last-ditch (and groundless) effort to sue their American client, UE, because they have little prospect of getting anything out of the Chinese. Bottom line: [1] Somebody broke the law. [2] It has little to do with copyrighting a program's output.
- macmac 10y agoThose are not the facts. UE didn't use SDS/2. They subcontracted work that requires the use of SDS/2 to a Chinese subcontractor who used an allegedly pirated copy of SDS/2 to do the work. It has to do with copyright in program output because that is what DDC is claiming. I would agree that the claim in this case is weak but it is before the 9th Circuit and their opinion is going to be very interesting either way.
- conistonwater 10y agoDoesn't this bit also matter? > Judge Callahan and Judge Hurwitz were both troubled by the fact that UE had advertised on its site that it used the SDS/2 software. UE’s counsel answered that UE was counting on contractors to use it, but admitted that UE had never asked DDC if it was indeed true that the contractors were legally using the software.
- braum 10y agoWhy not argue that because the external contractors in china are using an illegal copy, therefore there is no client that paid a license to use the software, and that DDC (software maker) should be able to assume the copyright of the output because they are the only viable and legal copyright holder of the software in use. AND therefore the only one with a valid license of the software and its output.
- crooked-v 10y ago> A. DDC (software maker) should be able to assume the copyright of the output > B. they are the only viable and legal copyright holder of the software in use B does not imply A. You're trying to invent something here that doesn't exist.
- macmac 10y agoOne of the judges actually start by disabusing DDC's counsel of the notion that one has anything to do with the other. You don't get to invent a new legal concept just because someone allegedly pirated your software.
- Rzah 10y agoIf I steal a pen and write a poem with it I still hold copyright over the poem, how the poem was transcribed has no bearing on copyright.
- braum 10y agogreat analogy, thanks!
- std_throwaway 10y agoSo, does that make them responsible for the things done with their software?
- rdtsc 10y ago> UE admitted that SDS/2 had been used to create files and drawings in five of its projects, but argued that they were made by contractors in China. China piracy story time. I was talking to makers of a niche CAD type software package. It was niche enough that they simply knew all their customers pretty much by name. They went to a trade show to exhibit their software, and a group of Chinese engineers approached them, thanked them and told how much the love their software, it is the best really for what it does, etc, etc. So that was good, everyone was happy and smiling, except one thing - the company shown on their badges was not a client.
- jameskegel 10y ago...continue
- rdtsc 10y agoWell they had a problem. Their software was being pirated. There was talk of a selling a hardware dongle with it. But I am not sure what came of it, since I lost contact with them. Here is what I wonder. Even if they lowered the price just for China, would there be a point where they would choose to pay for it or it would never matter a pirated copy would always be preferred.
- derrickdirge 10y agoIt depends. Does it include future updates? Are they pushed out to clients automatically? Does it include product support? Is it at least as easy to use as the pirated version (i.e. no intrusive DRM)? Is it at least as easy to obtain? If you can provide a service that can't easily be copied for less, generally people will pay for it.
- myrandomcomment 10y agoI have done a few HW and a few SW startups. For the HW I would eventually help us move into all of Asia. For the SW I would help move into Asia, minus China.
- LeicaLatte 10y agoNintendo has a similar take on its software. It claims rights on the game footage uploaded to youtube by users.
- njharman 10y agoThat makes more sense as they own the art assets that are being displayed in video.
- jwilk 10y agoFrom the Hacker News Guidelines[0]: > please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dba7dba 10y agoSo if I wrote a novel using Microsoft Word, Microsoft has the copyright to the novel?