Nature of the Rights - Case Study Example

Law, technology and culture assignment: discuss the nature of the rights that the creator of software has under the existing US Copyrights Act.   Overview of US Copyright Act concerning the creator of software                  The creation of computer programs or software in the United States is classified under the literary works, and its creator substantially enjoys the following protection or rights under the United States Copyright Act (The Copyright Act, 17 USC § 106 ): (i) Reproduction rights: This signifies that the creator has the due right to reproduce the software in any forms he/she so desires, since he/she enjoys the integrity of ownership of the software. Depending on the needs for the software, the creator has no quantity limits; that is, he/she can reproduce as many copies of the software as necessary. (ii) Preparation of derivative works: the creator could produce other derivative software or programs of the one already copyrighted. In this case, only the software creator has the rights to make other derivatives of the software using the basic object code for the existing software and undertake some modifications as he/she deems fit. What this signifies is that, take for instance, if a software product works well on Mac, but not on the Windows, the software creator has the legal rights to alter the algorithm of the software so as to make it compatible with the Windows. (iii) Distribution of the copies of the software: the creator has the right to distribute copies of his/her software to any buyers or end-users. In the United States, there are no barriers of jurisdictions: that is, the software could be distributed in all US states. Distribution outside the US, say to any EU countries, requires conformity with the laws of the targeted foreign markets. Because Copyright Law in the United States have no overbearing effects on EU countries. (iv) Public performances of the software: The creator has the right to authorize the use of the software for public performances like exhibition of the product to new buyers or for non-profit academic purposes. Software companies mostly engage in these public expositions of their software product to the public in order to reveal the maximum use of the product. In the United States, only the software creator is given the rights to do such a thing. (v)　Public display of the work: The creator of a software can display his/her software product publicly. This means advertising or displaying the software product where people could publicly see it. The software creator has the rights to showcase his/her products on the Shopping Mall shelves or other stores where the public could have a glance at the software product, its logo, manuals and other vital information pertaining to its use.  　　　　　　　Reviews of Copyright Infringement Cases                       However, on several occasions, creators of software have discovered that　some unscrupulous people have infringed on their statutory copyrights, whether　intentionally or unintentionally.  These circumstances often give rise to the issue of contemplating on the actual extent of protection the US Copyright Act is giving the creators of these software. To better understand this common problem, it is helpful to analyze the following legal cases of Copyright infringements in the United States, since this report concentrates on US Copyright Act:               In Q-Co. Industries, Inc. v. Hoffman, 1985, the software creator (Q-Co. Industries, Inc.) alleged that Hoffman copied its object code for the program and used it to produce another software that could perform the same function as the copyrighted software, but on a different hardware. This is an infringement on the creator’s rights (ii) stated above: that is, producing a derivative of the copyrighted program without the permission of the creator. Only the rightful owner of the program has the rights to produce any derivatives of the software to expand the uses or applications of the copyrighted one. What Hoffman had done was to steal an idea previously developed and copyrighted by someone else, and worked on that to make an entirely new program that could function even on another hardware.    In Whelan Associates Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc, 1985, Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. appealed against the ruling that disputed that Whelan Associates Inc. has not copied the appellant’s program for dental laboratory operation. The appellant was asking the court to stop the defendant from producing and distributing the program (software) made by copying its original product without a license. However, according to the US Copyright Act stated above (I), only the rightful creator of software could reproduce it in any quantity he/she so desired.   In Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intl, Inc., 1984, Apple sought a court injunction to prevent Formula from distributing the computers made by Apple and to stop using the trademark “pineapple” on its computers. In this case, Formula infringe on the creator’s copyright stated above, by unlawfully distributing Apple’s computers and making a public display of a logo comparable to Apple’s “bitten apple” logo. Doing this could confuse unsuspicious customers of Apple computers. In Digital Communications Assoc., Inc. v. Softklone Distrib. Corp., 1987, Softklone doesn’t copy the object or source code of Digital’s Crosstalk XVI communications program, but intentionally clone it using its own code. But Digital sought an injunction to safe the integrity of its product by preventing Softklone from distributing a similar product that may affect its software’s sales. This area of infringement is entirely new, and not indicated on US copyright Act for the software’s creator. In MiTek Holdings v. Arce Engineering, 1996, MiTek Holdings appealed against the ruling that declares the infringement on its rights by Arce Engineering minimal. MiTek alleged that Arce Engineering has copied the non-literal elements of its program (software), which include menu, submenu command tree structure and other elements of user interfaces. But the major problem is that those non-literal elements of MiTek’s software were unprotected at that time. Rare Cases Of Copyright Infringements The legal cases above reflect the common instances of copyright’s infringement of software products. However, creator’s copyrights (iv) and (v) indicated above rarely occur. Imagining the scenarios of occurrence, this would mean that an infringer decides to make a public performance and display of the copyrighted program (software) without due permission from the creator. It could happen in different forms: for example, an infringer who attends a business workshop may demonstrate the efficiency of software he/she claims to be his/hers, and which is not true. Or he/she could send the software for public display in shops, Stores, Malls in another jurisdiction where the US Copyright Act doesn’t have any influence.   Legal Cases’ Analysis and Contradictions Considering the foregoing, it is possible to analyze and pinpoint the obvious contradictions between the rights proffered in US Copyright Act and the infringed rights in the court cases quoted in this report. It is clear that US Copyright Act gives the software’s creator the uncontested rights to reproduce the software, as he/she likes. But it isn’t stated that the creator could go ahead and stop the reproduction of software that looks or functions exactly as the one previously copyrighted. Taking a serious look at Digital Communications Assoc., Inc. v. Softklone Distrib. Corp., it could be inferred that Softklone didn’t illegally reproduce an already copyrighted software, but intentionally cloned the copyrighted one using its own object code and tried to reproduce it. Although a software creator has the right to manufacture a derivative of its already copyrighted software, but the case becomes more complicated when an infringer produces a derivative of an original software belonging to another copyright owner without requesting for permission to do so. Investigating the case of Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intl, Inc., it was obvious that Apple has the rights to distribute its software under US Copyright Act, but the situation grows really critical when Formula illegally undertakes the operations of distribution and adulteration of Apple’s official logo. In Whelan Associates Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc, 1985, Jaslow Dental Laboratory fights to uphold its statutory rights to produce its dental operation’s program and stop Whelan from producing the program from copied object code. This same problem occurred in n Q-Co. Industries, Inc. v. Hoffman. But in MiTek Holdings v. Arce Engineering, the situation is totally different, as the disputed non-literal elements of software have not been copyrighted at the time of the legal suit. Therefore, MiTek has little or no rights to claim damages for copyright infringement against Arce Engineering. Discussion United States Copyright Act provides the following protections for a creator of software, as stated above: Reproduction rights that preventing the others from copying or duplicating the software Production of a derivative needed to enhance the functionality of the copyrighted software Distribution rights that allow the creator to distribute the software, as he/she likes. Public performance rights, which let the software be used in the public. Public display rights that make it possible for software to be displayed at the public locations. However, considering the court cases about copyright infringement highlighted above, it is clear that the US Copyright Act does not provide comprehensive protection for a creator of software. The US Copyright Act could have included the following rights listed below: Rights of uniqueness: the essence of these rights is that any software developed for a purpose shall remain the only existing software product for that purpose. For example, if a creator makes software that helps kids to master 20 vocabularies in one hour, such software can’t be produced by any other creator to serve the same purpose. If this is included in the Copyright Act, the issue of cloning, duplicating or copying would come to an end. Rights of non-simultaneous distribution: Another significant way to stop illegal distribution of software product is by giving the creator the rights that would encourage such a product to be marketed once at a time. Take for example, if a game software is marketed in the New York at a time, and then expanded its distribution to Maryland in another time, simultaneous distribution, which often leads to illegal distribution, may be completely eradicated. The rights of unique derivative’s production: If a software creator produces a product that he/she knows would be developed within a short time, such a creator could be allowed to copyright his/her dream derivative that should be produced in a certain time limit. If he/she fails to make the derivatives, the rights could be transferred to another creator who is willing and ready to produce the derivative. By doing this, the creator would receive enough protection against losing the opportunity to develop a derivative that would increase the efficiency of his/her original software. Conclusion In conclusion, it is not always easy to determine when a software creator’s rights have been infringed upon, if there are no mechanisms put in place to monitor the product’s uniqueness. And US Copyright Act protects the creator’s rights in a broad perspective without actually extrapolating the possibilities of modernized techniques to steal a creator’s idea. Take for instance, cloning is a modern way to copy someone’s software, but in actual fact, it isn’t directly synonymous to copying, since the new creator didn’t copy the original source or object code. In this case, the courts always find themselves in a dilemma as to how to describe the term ‘copy’. Though it’s somehow hard to implement the copyright rights at all time, the task lies with the software creator to make sure he/she discovers the infringer on his/her rights before it is too late.                Works cited Copyright Law of the United States of America: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf                     Read More