|
Okay, here's what I downloaded today....
Looks like two paid and three free. Duh, maybe I should be a software reviewer. The world really needs more of those; especially on the internet where software reviews are so rare. (yach-ah-ahhhh, I will accept bribes and no one will be able to tell.)
Thanks for the advice and direction
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote some specialised marine navigation software for the PC a few years ago, the sales are not mind blowing but are respectable and helped pay the way when the kids were younger.
I use Hydrographic data under licence and legally I am bound by certain conditions of use of the data, so as a "back to back" condition with the program's user the opening screen of the program says:
"Unauthorised copying or distribution of this program or any parts thereof or any data produced by or produced from its use or ownership is strictly prohibited under U.K.and international law and WILL result in criminal proceedings to the maximum permitted under such law. This program is for single user only."
The user has to "Agree" to continue or "Disagree" and the program closes.
Suddenly I have an issue, I find that my software has been used by a very large energy company as a part of their justification process and they have quoted my software's output with a dozen references and screen grabs in a report that has now been posted on a UK Government planning portal. The authors of the report have totally disregarded the conditions of use and even more importantly have not addressed some very important issues which my software does take into account, their report is just plain inadequate (almost laughable) but it drags my software into an argument which I don't want to be a part of.
My problem is that they have blatantly broken the conditions of use of the software but what should I do about it? I have already sent a letter to them and they replied saying they had hired a consultant and gave me their name possibly with the intention of pushing the responsibility onto them.
Should I ignore the situation knowing that it will eventually get buried in the mists of time or should I take some form of action?
The broader and more important issue that this highlights being is it only the likes of Microsoft, Google, Apple etc who can enforce their conditions of use and when the rest of us put in our conditions how can we enforce them?
I think the lawyers will get rich if I pursue this and I am the one who will lose his shirt.
What would you guys do or what have you done in similar situations?
Les
Victory for the little man- but how?
|
|
|
|
|
As I understand it, going to Law in the UK is very expensive, so before doing so I would ask the following questions:
- What is your legal liability for their misuse of the program?
Are you liable for damages to the providers of the data that you use?
Is it likely that you will be held liable for the laughable results presented in their report? - Will their misuse of your program harm your reputation?
- Are there any copyright issues in their use of your software's output?
You may find it easier to sue them for copyright violation than for breaking the licensing terms. - How deep are the pockets involved?
Yours, and theirs (don't neglect the consultant)
And last, but far from least:
5. What does your solicitor think of this?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I ain't no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV...
It sounds to me like your "conditions of use" is simply there to cover your ass if the data provider tries to come after you for violation of their license. I don't see any benefit in raising a stink.
|
|
|
|
|
Note: I am not familiar with British IP law.
I'd say your best best is to send a registered letter to the company you license the hydrographic data from advising them of a possible misuse of their data, and include a copy of your letter to the company you allege misused their data, and their response.
My guess is that would "cover your ass" in terms of any possible liability, and place the onus of defending IP rights on the data licensing source, where it belongs.
But, as others have said (or implied) here: see an IP lawyer.
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
Les mt wrote: criminal proceedings
I would say that this phrase alone is enough to make the entire condition useless. If there is a law covering this then it's a matter for the police and the DPP to worry about .. costing you zero. If there isn't, as I suspect, then the whole condition is unenforcable anyway. It seems to me to be a particularly poorly constructed condition that has no legal force beyond the idle threat of 'trespassers will be prosecuted' which, of course, they cannot!
I don't know the precise nature of the data or the source but I'd have to wonder if it can legitimately be placed under strict copyright anyway, especially in the age of 'freedom of information' legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not a lawyert
Copyright law still exists, and is enforceable even against multi-national corporations. For example, if you publish a book in the U.K and a corporation doing business in the U.K. violates your copyright, they are liable for the penalties prescribed under the U.K. copyright laws.
They may possibly avoid payment by ceasing to do business in the U.K. and removing all of their assets from the U.K., but that seems to be a drastic solution...
As for "Freedom of Information" laws, they apply to governmental information, not private information. Lots of luck trying to get Coca-Cola to release their secret recipe under FoI laws...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright is a matter for the civil courts. It is not criminal law. You would have to demonstrate that you had suffered a compensatable loss as a result of any breach otherwise there is no point in the court proceeding. As I said, trespassers cannot be prosecuted, neither can copyright infractors.
The criminal law relates to creating fake copies of things with intent to deceive the buying public. Clearly it does not apply here and I'm at a loss to see how it would with relation to the data or the program which is why I queried the wording of the condition. At the very least I believe the condition as it stands would fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act since it is an idle threat.
I appreciate that you are only following orders here but I think the source company needs to take a serious look at its licencing arrangements. It's my feeling that even had you a Google or an Apple behind you there would be nothing to be gained from pursuing this matter legally. Both of them, by the way, recognise that for all practical purposes the conditions that they append to their products aren't worth the paper they're not written on (especially in the case of Google's free products!) The best that they can hope for is spotty compliance with a fallback position for anything which is truly damaging in financial terms. Breaches are pretty much an everyday occurrence!
|
|
|
|
|
As I have said before, I am not a lawyer. If you are a solicitor / barrister and are speaking from professional knowledge, I stand corrected.
As I understand it, the U.K. does have criminal copyright law (see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-offences/intellectual-property-offences[^]. Whether it applies to this case is another matter.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the wording used in the agreement from the government agency concerned is "criminal proceedings" and my solicitor advised me strongly to use the same wording on the front of the software for my own protection and also to satisfy the licensing authority.
Your discussion is very interesting to me thanks very much for the input.
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome. Just remember that free advice is worth every penny. 
I strongly urge you not to take further steps without consulting your solicitor.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
HR: You know why we called you down?
Me: Hmm... Promotion?
HR: You know we monitor internet usage right?
Me: I'd like to report a hacking.
The first step in the acquisition of wisdom is SILENCE, the second is LISTENING, the third MEMORY, the forth, PRACTICE and the fifth is TEACHING others!
|
|
|
|
|
Did it work?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Akinmade Bond wrote: You know why we I called you down?
Me: Please bring a cup of tea in IT hall.
They: its HR,you should have called the kitchen guys.
Me: Ooops! your extensions are too alike.
Some Other Day
Me: Network not working properly, please sort it out.
They: Its operations, please call IT support team.
Me: Ooops! your extensions are almost the same.
Me: Cries a whole river on my amazing sense of memorizing and then mixing up the extensions 
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you'll want to report a hacking as the punchline has appeared nto the subject and this is clearly not your fault... 
|
|
|
|
|
O, Joy of SQL! Ran query to get total hours 'People of the Web' spent watching just TOP-100 most popular YouTube Videos [1], got approx. 4.1 Billion man-hours. To put in perspective: it took 20 years and 100,000 workers to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu, (a.k.a. Cheops Pyramid - re: Herodotus). Assuming average 2,080 hrs/yr results in labor estimate of approx 20 x 100k x 2,080 = 4.16 billion man-hours. So, using this as a unit of labor, watching YouTube-100 equals “1 Cheops”. Kinda philosophical Q: how we will be remembered 3 kilo-years from now? 
References
1. YouTube TOP-100[^]
2. Walk Like an Egyptian | The Bangles[^]
<lol>Life is 2short 2remove USB safely
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of; King Tut[^] - Steve Martin
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
I know the voices in my head are not real but damn they come up with some good ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
<lol>Life is 2short 2remove USB safely
|
|
|
|
|
DrABELL wrote: 1. YouTube TOP-100[^]
and not one single cat video within the top 100! Seriously! What is the internet coming to!?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, right!
<lol>Life is 2short 2remove USB safely
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: how we will be remembered 3 kilo-years from now?
Easy: We will be remembered as the generation that killed music! 
How do we preserve the wisdom men will need,
when their violent passions are spent?
- The Lost Horizon
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, that's right!
<lol>Life is 2short 2remove USB safely
|
|
|
|
|
Good point about present generation. Although the total estimate is not absolutely correct, I'd say. YouTube measures video stats in 'views', it does not mean that you view full video though. For good old Gangnam Style on the top, I stopped this sh*t after 10 seconds, certainly didn't waste 4:13 of time, and hopefully I'm not the only one doing so. So hopefully we wasted only half Cheops Pyramid on average
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. T.Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
That's true, but keep in mind that some other folks may have been viewing it a dozen times and still counted like one view per person, so it's just an estimate. Btw, take a look at "approval ratio" for this item (88%), which is not that bad vs Justin Bieber’s “Baby” (2nd one) with that ratio of 39%, i.e. the most unpopular item in entire top-100.
<lol>Life is 2short 2remove USB safely
|
|
|
|
|
Not to be picky, but I would guess it would be more like 3,600 hours per year. (slave labor you know)
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
