Who owns the EA? - page 3
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 unlike most have spoke with the copyright office long ago over what kind of protection was possible with a program and ~piece of code.
One of the things they actually publish, which they so adamantly stick with in emails, was:
Can anyone believe that an automated trading strategy or indicator is not indeed a function? Then, I was told to actually protect a piece of code I would need to patent it, which would be highly unlikely approved. But anyways a patent means it was published to the public forum for observance.
If your source code is anywhere in the "public domain" then it's uncopyrightable and cannot be intellectual property to have rights to. Just the fact the developer has a copyrightable copy acting as a third person in a copyright registration means it cannot be copyrighted in USA despite what MQL5 says, but not necessarily in regards to legal jurisdiction.
People could go to copyrights for code in a company, and they have a duty to uphold with it's ownership, but this is actually with regards to a liability ~ with business practices. It's never going to be a legal dispute for gambling systems, as far as I can tell. Anyways, expect a lawsuit to be a shot at existing laws and protections already established against capitalizing on an idea of a strategy to trade ~ which is on you to keep to yourself. Truly, your preexisting laws and agreements are your only proof of anything, possibly, legally binding.
In the case of the work I got done in through the freelancer service, which was vivaciously leaked to the public domain, it was never under agreement that anything like that couldn't be done! Further, if you present an idea which cannot be explicitly copyrighted though the applicable laws in your country then you stand to loose your idea to another as one other moderator so said. It doesn't stand to reason, without any legally binding agreements, that there is any protection over your codes in this language in my honest opinion. 😂
Who truly owns the work is MQL5, the developer, and the customer! Infact to say that my work belonged to only me would have been a fallacy since I did infact get the work done through MQL5 freelancer long before, making clearing up copyright registration and ownership a hassle that can be come troublesome later on when it's challenged. And that project fell through,. I sell it on the market, which would create a liability as well between me and all others involved in the true ownership over the code ~ if ever a copyright was ever actually available over it..
You're better off writing your own code and taking measures to enforce licenses with the best forms of protection over decompilation in leu of obtaining a copyright registration over it, and enforcing legally. The setting of it's use and facets of it's existence are greatly weighed in on it's rights to an owner.
I have brought up requiring there being a non-disclosure agreement before to take to the law which means that there would be satisfaction over a tangible/intangible intellectual property right to the code, but in addition it would also be best to have an actual and legally binding agreement as to whom owns the copyright upon completion of an idea in the freelancer section. But, as I said it will always be a trial on what was ever legally binding and to hold up in a court setting - against pre-existing laws and legal jurisdiction.
Maybe, the company doesn't want anyone to be held liable with any and all products of it's programming language and makes us an agreement based on signing up and owning an account with them, so we have the idea to seek a better legal definition of what will hold up in court.
I simply tell others that none of it is ever truly owned and that it's probably in their better interest to just keep their ideas to themselves.
*EDIT* thanks you moderators for playing king of the hill of others forum posts ~ it was truly unnecessaryi want to put my 2 bobs worth into this rather heated "discussion" (hehe)
It makes no difference what Metaquotes or mql5 or the original coder or customer says or does or puts in legal writing, unless it is done in person. any legal documentation done online is only enforceable within that country that the server resides; "that server" is the server where the legal document is sitting when the signatures were done. There are many of hundreds of court cases and judge's statements regarding legal juisdiction regarding legal signing, just go look it up on the legal websites you can find in many of the bigger countries.
Intellectiual property and Copyright are much more complicated, as some of each can stretch over international border, while others are different from country to country, and again, the only ones applicable are the ones that apply to the same country or territory that the document was either signed in person, OR where the server resided. But these are not even considered if the location of the server is in dispute. Until the location of that server is proven, or the agreement that is signed in person, has been confirmed to have been signed in person, with witness documents also signed and proven, the court case is likely to be kicked out of court and the parties are stuck with paying their share of the court costs.
But once the legal documentation has been proven to be "legit" and the witness documents also confirmed, then all rights and intellectual property are assumed by most courts and judges, to be in the hands of the original coder unless speciificly specified in the agreement and supporting documentation that was agreed to with the signatures, and irrespective of whether any currency changed hands. And if the original coder can not be confirmed then the whole case is thrown out of court and all legal costs are either split between the 2 parties or 100% to the party that filed the court case, judges choice usually, both in australia, UK, america, canada, and all other legal jursidictions that come to my mind.
As for the compiler, the same thing applies, any agreement that we make by compiling our eas, is only enforeable in the coutry where that server resides, and if the location can not be proven in court then, like above, the case is kicked out of court or the judge might allow a period of time for parties to come up with the proof. And while the encrypted file is recognised as legal domain of Metaquotes, if you successfully decrypt a file, then that source code is in "free domain". Metaquotes can not take that code from you, and for any legal action made against the "alleged pirate/decrypter", Metaquotes has to prove that that person is in posession of the decryption software, and that they had their fingers on the keyboard when the alleged decryption took place.
As for codes on codebase, if the file in question has even just 1 added space or comment in the file, even if the filename is unchanged, the legal owner is the person whom owns the computer where that file resides on. does not matter if the rest of the code, minus that 1 space added is 100% same as 1 done by another corder, the person whom owns the computer where that file resides, is the owner of that newer file, and the original coder holds 0 rights over that file, whether compiled or not; Once a coder has posted raw code, uncompiled, anywhere it is in public domain, irrespective of who wrote the original code or whom is determined as the owner. Once that raw code has bee posted on the net it is "free for all".
Well! thats my rant for the year! I do not understand why the moderators continue to allow these discussions haha.
In Conclusion, (haha), if you are going to post your codes online, then only do so with developers who reside in the same legal jurisdiction as you, or any legal proceedings will be extremely complicated irrespective of where the documents were signed, as that is when copyright and intellectual property laws become far more complicated and costly for the lawyers to prove and argue in a court.
I will try to explain why MetaQuotes “rules” about the default transfer of all rights, in the absence of a pre-agreement, is not only illegal, but completely contrary to their business model.
When a programmer writes an EA or Script, or whatever, he writes many lines of code, including functions, classes or even libraries that the coder has devised and created. The coder may even use parts coded by another developer, shared in public under an open-source license.
If it were the case, as stated by the rules above, and all rights transferred, by which every single line of code become the exclusive property of the customer, then that would mean that the coder would not be allowed to ever again reuse the code ever again, be it the functions, the classes, the libraries, or any of it for any other program. Never! Plus, if the coder used open source code by another coder, they would not be allowed to transfer such rights over, at all, without prior permission, and that would automatically violate an open source license.
That is way, in the world of software development, when a all rights are transferred to a customer, the prices for such work, are huge. In no way, would a coder ever sell away all his rights for a measly $30 to $100. Ever!
So, if a coder were to strictly abide by the rules as stated by MetaQuotes, they would only be able do a job or two, and no more, because it would be against copyright laws to ever reuse even one line of code with another customer. They would have to totally rewrite things completely differently between jobs. It would be impossible to code every single job so differently so as not to violate the copyright of a previous job. This is impossible to do for more than a couple of jobs, and it would prevent the coder from doing multiple jobs and earn MetaQuotes their commission.
So, I will repeat, not only is MetaQuotes rules in violation of copyright law, it is also totally impractical and against their aim of making a profit off the commission. It is contrary to the business models.
No matter what their rules states, they cannot legally override the coders’ rights nor demand they relinquish it at so low prices and with no legal documentation to accompany such a transaction.
However, I would like to clarify, that the customer also holds some rights in terms of their Intellectual Property. That is in regard to any strategy they have requested to be coded. Should such a strategy be completely unique and not available in public, in any way, shape or form, then that strategy is exclusively the property of the customer and the coder should not sell or distribute that information nor the EA using such a strategy.
In these cases, it would become a deadlock situation, as neither side would be allowed to have exclusive rights to the EA and neither side can sell or distribute it and both sides can only use it for personal use (unless one side, signed away some of their rights to the other).
This is however very rare, as most strategies are variations of what is already discussed and available all over the web and in books. So, the vast majority of customers will not be able to claim such exclusive Intellectual Property rights.
But don’t take my word for it. Do your own research and consult with a lawyer! It will surprise you at how much you will learn about copyright laws.
How it is illegal for MetaQuotes to put down a clause in their terms that is agreed to as a freelancer before you start the job? If you don't like the terms MetaQuote dictates, you do not have to agree to them. Nothing about what they have in their terms is illegal. However you want to look at it, it still remains that their terms explicitly state that without any other agreement in the specifications, the exclusive rights to that program go the customer. MetaQuotes putting this in their terms does not violate any law that I know of in the U.S, where I live. If a coder and customer can form an agreement, then so can MetatQuotes form an agreement that is agreed to by both parties, customer and developer. If you are upset with this rule or think its illegal is besides the point. MQL5 ultimately has the right to determine if the rules are being followed. Customers who may never have hired a developer before and who don't know the world of coding, benefit from a clause such as this, that will assure that the customer is satisified and has a right to inspect the code of the final project. The reason being is that without the code, its impossible to know if there is any purposefully implemented expiration in the code, to result in an unusable program, once the project file is handed over. This is just an example. So in conclusion, according to the rules you agree to as a freelancer (whether you think they are unfair or illegal or not), unless the developer wants exclusive rights to a program, its up the developer to insist this is defined in the terms, not up to the customer, absent any other terms that supersede the default terms defined by MQL5.
Then I suggest you consult a lawyer. You may be in for a surprise!
I have. This is a valid contract between two parties (freelancer/customer and MQL5. Please let me know how the terms of MQL5 violates U.S law? I can't speak to the laws of any other country. Sorry, but you are not going to win in court if you think that somehow you will get out of a contract you agreed to when signing up as a freelancer.
And yet you neglected the most important part — no one "signs up" to be a "freelancer". There is no formal "sign-up" procedure. There is no valid and legal "agreement"! All there is, is a registration to be a "seller". That is all.
But, I will not be arguing the point any further. Any serious dispute between a customer and a developer should be left to their legal representatives.
And if you have such a dispute underway, then have your lawyer sort it for you.
It's a bit more complicated than that I'm afraid. A freelancer is legally speaking not the originator of the idea to be executed, and therefore cannot capitalize on the intellectual property of the finished good since he does not own it in the first place. He is merely a contractor hired to implement a very specific trading strategy (the product's concept) into an automated form via coding. The IP holding rights, thus, do not belong to the contractor, but the contractee unless otherwise explicitly stated in the contract via a transferral-of-rights clause. If I have developed a new artillery weapons system and outsource the construction to Raytheon, they have the right to a contractually specified compensation scheme, but do not gain the intellectual property rights. In other words, they are disallowed to claim selling rights, add the finished goods to their own balance sheet (unless they become the buyer or lessee of the product) or demand commissions (royalty-like payments) from the IP holder for the turnover of the inventory that Raytheon has provided him with. The same principle applies with an MQL5 freelancer who programs an EA on the specifications and strategy of the contractee. All the freelancer has a right to is the collection of the agreed upon payment.
IF however, the contractee's instruction is something as nebulous as "create a low-risk EA for me", then the contractor becomes also responsible for the creation of the product's concept and therfore gains the copyright over the entire finished product. The contractee might be able to claim the product and use it to trade in the markets, but is disallowed to sell, lease, alter design, functionality and arrangement of the software without the express permission of the author. Another thing that many people don't seem to know is that there is no such thing as an international copyright that will automatically protect a work throughout the world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends on the national laws of that country.
I've also seen the mention of patents here. A patent is an altogether different animal within the world of IP. A copyright merely protects you from other people falsely claiming authorship, but doesn't grant you exclusive commercial exploitation rights. That's something only a patent enables you to do. Now, before you guys run off to patent your EA: you can't patent an EA but only its underlying algorithm. Even then, your patent application will be refused by the authorities if your algorithm isn't a novel invention. To give you an example: you can't patent an algorithm just because it uses a set of indicators that nobody else uses. But if your algorithm uses a custom tailored indicator, or uses a scoring system (rank-ordering of relevant market information) algorithm that to date is not being used anywhere else, a patent can be applied for and is usually granted. Patents also have term limits. When that limit expires, others can start to use your invention for their own commercial benefit. However, if certain conditions are met you can file a PTE under 35 U.S.C. 156 to the USPTO and get another 5 years.
Addendum:
the above does not apply within corporate environments. Every marketable invention/innovation/concept/idea that is documented while hired by a corporation is automatically owned by that entity.