| |||||||||||||
DMCA fun from StorageTekDMCA fun from StorageTekPosted Jul 15, 2004 19:11 UTC (Thu) by ekonijn (subscriber, #6395)Parent article: DMCA fun from StorageTek Who owns the event log anyway? If the customer creates error messages by running the box, it seems strange that the copyright of the error messages rests with the manufacturer. Without copyright, why does the manufacturer have standing to sue?
(Log in to post comments)
DMCA fun from StorageTek Posted Jul 16, 2004 0:33 UTC (Fri) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] StorageTek might claim that they hold copyright on the format strings used to generate the log messages, so the event log as a whole is a derivative work of their software.A bit tenuous, but it seems like they pulled it off.
DMCA fun from StorageTek Posted Jul 16, 2004 23:05 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Maybe the terms of the sale of the machine say the customer assigns copyright in all the error data the machine produces to StorageTek. Seems like a clever way to structure a deal.
DMCA fun from StorageTek Posted Dec 20, 2004 0:48 UTC (Mon) by Matlock (guest, #26779) [Link] David York, et al have other problems, including a federal investigation against CHE through the U.S. Department of Labor for improper job classification. Several field engineers are supposed to be non-exempt and paid overtime. CHE has classified them as exempt and does not pay any overtime as required by federal law. I suspect a class-action suit is in the making.
Btw... I have reviewed the situation of the STK case and the injuction stay has been lifted. The ELEMS at all STK equip'd sites had to be removed and the injunction is currently in effect. The ELEM code seems to be in violation of the law as stipulated in the original STK complaint. CHE does not have the direct ability to monitor the tape libraries unless they ask the customers for host-system reports, which is what they have asked their field engineers to do... it's a mess!
|
|||||||||||||