Cubic Dollars

Shannen Durphey shannen at grolen.com
Sat Jan 30 09:29:18 GMT 1999


Well, I've spent a bunch of time looking at copyright stuff.  Some
summaries follow:

1)  The online method for looking for copyrights is archaic, leading
to #2

2)  I didn't find any copyrights by GM specifically pertaining to
software.  This is inconclusive by itself.

3)  The requirements for registering computer programs depend on
whether the program contains "trade secrets" or not.  $20.00, plus a
completed application, and 50 pages of code gets a copyright.  Code
can be "blacked out" if it contains trade secrets.  There are some
small variations to these requirements.

4)  The copyright office includes a disclaimer:  
"Copyright protection extends to all of the copyrightable
expression embodied in the computer program.  Copyright protection
is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems,
methods, concepts, or layouts."  

5)  Copyright information must be present in programs copyrighted
before 3/1/1989, but is not necessary after that date.  This is
primarily to reduce or prevent "Innocent violations"

6)  A certificate of copyright can be issued at any time up to 5 years
after the initial publication of the program, and the program is
considered copyrighted from the initial date of publication.

7)  Even if the copyright owner has lost no money, and an individual
has gained no profit from a violation, the owner may still file for
statutory damages, ranging from $200 to $2500 per incident for
illegaly bypassing copy protection and from $2500 to $25000 for
altering/falsifying copyright information.  This is in addition to any
criminal penalties.

8)  For the sake of copyright protection, "a technological measure
`effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the
ordinary course of it's operation, requires the application of
information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the
copyright owner, to gain access to the work."  (copy protection, here)

9)  The only argument for the above that I can see, and it's a
stretched one at that, is that by not placing the source code on the
eprom, (am I right here...op codes yes, source code no?) there's a
"process or treatment" required to gain access.

10)  In order to determine the "interoperability" of one program with
another, copy protection may be legally circumvented.  This falls
inder the heading "Reverse Engineering", which is somewhat vague. 
Taken in context, reverse engineering could be limited to reversing
the copy protection, or could include the entire program.  Either way
you must have a legal right to use the software which you are reverse
engineering.

11)  Since there is no specific agreement stating otherwise, I have to
assume that possession of an eprom, or possession of an ECM, or
possesion of the appropriate vehicle constitutes a legal right to use
the program.  I wonder what would happen in court if you introduced
the idea that the EPA requires that you have a right to use the
software if you own the vehicle, especially during the emissions
warranty period.

So.  If you own a vehicle which uses the computer for which the
program was designed, and you are running the program through
promgrammer, or tweaker, or any similar software with the intention of
evaluating how well the programs work together, there should be no way
to prosecute for copyright violations.

Mike, Since the copyright office requires code to be submitted with a
copyright application, and the code is available for public viewing,
there should be no problem with posting limited amounts of code. 
Stick to 50 lines max.  In addition, after eliminating everything not
covered by copyright (see #4), what is left of our simple code?  

All in all, I think it would be pretty difficult for GM to
successfully prosecute for copyright violations, as they don't seem to
have gone to any lengths to indicate copyright.  There's no security
of any kind on the program, no markings anywhere of copyrighted
material, and no part of the program which appears to be copyright
protected.  This is in stark contrast with GM's general approach, as
they are very thorough about adding their copyright information to
manuals, sales information, diagnostic materials, scan tools, shop
software, logos, and on and on. Since GM has set a reliable pattern
regarding copyright information, and there is none present in the
code, it must not be copyrighted.

Successful prosecution aside, GM's lawyers could break my bank in a
day.  If I had any doubts, I'd sure stay clear of 'em.

Here are links to the materials I butchered for this.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright
http://www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-home.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
A listing of copyrights which have been granted since 1972 can be
obtained via ftp at 140.147.254.3.  I found some as old as 1962

If anyone follows my advice and ends up getting in trouble because of
it, don't come crying to me.  I'm a mechanic, not a lawyer.
Shannen




More information about the Diy_efi mailing list