Community Help: Protecting copyright - page 6
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I like nipples
WTF Mate?? but, X2
Oh and good work daraknor! I support you 100% man!!
I don't think this is a fair statement; Daraknor forced me to address issues that
I may have neglected. I believe this sort of dialogue is important for the community; But, I guess some people would prefer blood drawn and my guts hanging out in the gutter. Perfect case of damed if you do damed if you don't.
Rip, please try your best to evaluate what I said and not flame me as I mean no disrespect to you or anyone here.
Emerson Duhart
646-827-9212
Lol. You know what's funny about all of this is here's big bad "Daraknor The Barbarian & Great Equalizer" patroling the forum and he decides to play some full-contact golf with Emerson. Emerson whips out the attorney/lawsuit angle and daraknor quivers like a bowl of jello - even calls Emerson to make up and discuss the market over a few virtual martini's. This stuff cracks my ass up! Clearly, daraknor is all lip and no bite.
Lol. You know what's funny about all of this is here's big bad "Daraknor The Barbarian & Great Equalizer" patroling the forum and he decides to play some full-contact golf with Emerson. Emerson whips out the attorney/lawsuit angle and daraknor quivers like a bowl of jello - even calls Emerson to make up and discuss the market over a few virtual martini's. This stuff cracks my ass up! Clearly, daraknor is all lip and no bite.
Nothing funnier then a flamed N00b. BWWAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Illegal distribution of software can subject a seller to arrest and felony charges with fines up to $250,000 and prison terms of up to 5 years. In civil litigation against infringers trafficking products that are illegally distributed or reproduced, the owner can obtain the higher of its lost profits, the infringer’s profits, or statutory damages of up to $100,000 per product, per infringement, in addition to recovery of attorneys’ fees in the action."
We might want to consider joining: http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/vero-aboutme.html as a community.
Info about Verified Rights Owner program:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/confidence/programs-vero-ov.html
For more information on eBay's Unauthorized Copies Policy, please visit:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/replica-counterfeit.html
Ebay policy: "If the item you reported does not appear on its face to violate this
policy, we may refer it to the intellectual property rights owner for
review. If the rights owner has a good faith belief that the item is
infringing, they may choose to send eBay a formal request to remove the
listing."
eBay’s Privacy Policy states, "we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your User ID, name, street address, city, state, zip code, country, phone number, email, and company name to eBay VeRO Program participants as we in our sole discretion believe necessary or appropriate in connection with an investigation of fraud, intellectual property infringement, piracy, or other unlawful activity."Good idea. But we might (need to) as well report like half of all e-bay merchants (ones who sell virtual stuff), coz they be selling "scene" stuff (soft, ebooks, etc) like hot cakes!
Still, good idea.
daraknor,
I am thinking now as forum administrator.
Just one question (not real case).
One person (developer let's say) had some idea. He tested this idea using MetaTrader during the several months. Then programmer came and programmed his idea onto indicator. Or developer asked him - does not matter. Programmer came and programmed idea related to other person.
And he typed his own copywrite as he, programmer, is the owner of the indicator.
Developer said: thats you very much. But I need alarm to this indicator.
Programme: this indicator created underyour idea is my property now. And to modify it you need to ask me, or to pay me.
daraknor,
I am asking as admin: how to protect the developers from programmers?
Because copywrite violation (when the or indicator is ready) is not usual case on the forum. You understand. When indicator (software let's say) is ready and copywrited so it is normal case. But as I know some programmers are collecting the ideas to program ideas to be the owner of them.
If this copywrite is the same with patented idea by some software so I think we should protect developers (people who are expressing ideas) by giving programmers to them who are connected with the forum to get form tsd copywrite.
Right?
And, may be, it is not good if many programmers are aroud or inside the forum? Because every forum is having forum programmers (for tsd copywrite) you understand ...Hi NewDigital,
I read your post here and I think it is an interesting point you make. I'm not a lawyer but I used to work in licencing copyrights so I thought I'd make a few suggestions here. I've also made a few analogies to music copyright law as I believe the distinctions are similar. Note: In the example, I am assuming the developer paid the programmer for his work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the scenario you describe, I'd suggest that the programmer has no rights regarding the copyright of the ea/indicator for two reasons:
1) It could be argued the developer owns the intellectual property of 'the concept'. This is similar to owning music publishing.
i.e copyright can exist for an 'idea' separate to the tangible translation of that idea (the code).
2) The developer paid the programmer to produce a translation of that concept into code. In music law this would mean owning the 'copyright on the recording'. The owner of the copyright is the person who 'paid for the work to be produced'...in this case the developer. By paying the programmer the developer is, in effect, buying all rights. Therefore, in this scenario, the programmer actually has no rights regarding the copyright of the work (other than the right to be paid for his work). On the other hand, If the developer did not paid the programmer, the latter could argue that he owns the copyright for his coded translation. In this case, each person would need to seek the others permission to use the ea/indicator for other means.
Summary:
Programmers are mistaken to believe they own the copyright for ea/indicator code that they were paid to programme from a developer's concept.
There are holes in the above. I have a friend that ownes a publishing company (he should of known better). He hired (paid for) a programer to program him an accounting software made per his spects that was custom for publihing firms. The program was so good the programer sold it to other publishing firms, including my friends compatistion. The ownership of the program was deamed to be the programers in court.
You have to agree in writing that you are holding all rights and the ownership of the code is included in the price, as well. Also if you publish code (publishing includes puting it out on a forum for public use) you must also state within the code how its use is restricted and who to contact for other uses there of. The fact that you only put "(c) copyright 2006" and your name does not garrantee your rights with out submitting a copy of and rights your retaining to the 'CopyRight and TradeMark office'. You donot have to follow all this if the work is never publihed. In which case I still put in a clause that states my retention of rights shown as below.
When someone comes to me to code an EA my aggreement is this; The idear behine the EA remains to its creator. The ownership of the code remains with me. My fee for codeing, is the free and personal use of the EA (your idear) and for that you have the free and personal use of the EA.(my code) Neither one of us can make commercial use of the Idear or the code without the others permission. This is stated in the code itself. I always send a copy to be copyright office.
Now before everyone starts hounding me to do free codeing. I only code what I beleive to be a good profitable idear. I donot code any EAs that I beleive are not worth my time.
The CockeyedCowboy
//»»» MetaQuote [ MQ 4 ] »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««
//»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» IDENTIFICATION DIVISION ««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««
//»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««
#define ProgramName "The Russian Roulette"
#define SystemSymbol "TRR"
#define Author "Keit Thomas Largo"
#define eMail "CockeyedCowboy@HotMail.com"
#define ProducedFor "WinSoft Technology ®"
#define ModuleType "Expert Advisor"
#define DateWriten "02/23/2005"
#define VersionNumber "3.00.01"
#define LastUpDate "04/13/2006"
#define ProgramLanguage "MetaQuote ® MQL v4.00, b183"
#define ScriptLanguage "Lore Language ® v2.60"
#define SecurityLevel "Signature File Required"
#define Documentation "see Documentation Division"
#define CopyRight "UnPublished"
/* ««« COPYRIGHT NOTICE: »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
This program is the unpublished works of the author and a
part of his private library. It is protected as such under
the United States Copyright laws. No part of this program
may be used or re-produced for any purpose, in any form or
by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system.
Making copies and or use of this program without the prior
writen permission of the author, is strictly prohibited.
No offers are being made to the public for distribution,
sale, re-sale or usage. WinSoft Technology is a registed
TradeName of the author and doesnot constitute a transfer.
~~~ Keit Thomas Largo ~~~
//»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««
I agree with the fact that if a developer is serious about retaining ownership of the work then he should get it in writing (and I'd suggest that the fee paid to the programmer should probably reflect this). I can't comment on your friend's specific case as I obviously don't know the details...
All I was saying, from ND's example, is that it would be naive for the programmer, in general, to assume that he owns all rights to an indicator/ea of someone else's concept particularly if he has been paid to write the code...
But I agree...... it is a grey area, hence the need to get things in writing if one of the party's intends to exploit the work for commercial purposes.