<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I’m technically not stealing the software. Stealing is taking something from somebody so the original owner no longer has that which was stolen. If I take your car, you can’t drive it because I have it. Think of it this way. Lets say there is a car in a parking lot. It’s a nice car and I really want it! But I’m not gunna carjack the owner, I have an even better idea. I tell the owner to get out of his car for a moment, stand a few meters away 5 or 6 meters and take their personal belongings, money, credit cards and so on. I just want the car. The owner does so. I then pull out a futuristic gunlike machine, aim it at the car, press a button, and wait 20 or 30 seconds while the machine makes an exact duplicate of the car at the subatomic level. I then politely thank the owner for letting me copy his car, and I let the owner go on his way while I get in the matter-replicated/duplicated copy of his car which even replicated the gas in the tank so I then get in my copy of his car that I replicated, for free, and drive off. And the owner still has his car, and all his stuff. Should the owner of that car call the police? He still has his car, and I have a replicated copy of his car. If I were the owner, I would just let the person running around with the replicator machine, go on his way. As long as he has a legitimate driver’s license well then he can have and drive the car as far as I’m concerned. If only we could copy and manipulate physical matter just like we can with computer digital files. Would they still call it stealing if I went to your house and simply matter-replicated a copy of that nice gaming computer you have and took the replicated copy with me home and used it? And in return rather than purchasing a new smartphone, I’ll let you use your replication machine to replicate the nice new iPhone that I just got. After all, why pay $1000 for something when you can get a replication machine for $30 from some place in India or China and make physical material copies of the stuff you want? Did you steal my iPhone? No, you copied its atomic structure using unused particles of matter in the surrounding area and reconfigured the particles into the item you wanted using a machine to first scan the original item’s subatomic structure, store it in memory, then make an exact duplicate. You did not steal it from me, you copied it, and I let you copy it. I guess apple missed out on $1000 because rather than buying a new iPhone, I just copied yours with my futuristic matter-replication machine. Same with the car, food, water, your big-screen tv. You had some frozen pizzas in your freezer that I decided I liked, so I set my machine to make me 3 or 4 copies of your frozen pizzas to take home. Did I buy them? No. you bought one, and I made 4 copies of the one you purchased. I did not steal your food. It’s still in your freezer, I just made a few copies for myself, took the replicated copies home which are exact duplicates atom for atom of the original product, took them home and put them in my freezer for later, box and all. The problem is again, we can do stuff with digital files which we currently cannot do with physical matter, well maybe on a very very very rudimentary level with 3d printing but its in its infancy yet. Copying and stealing are two different things. Yes its morally wrong to copy software and give it to someone else, but I did not steal it because the developer still has his copy, source code, executable, and all. Will they call it stealing when we can manipulate material physical objects and edit those, as easily as we copy and edit digital computer files today? </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Josh</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows 10</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:Text_to_Speech@GMX.com">Don</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, July 22, 2019 20:42<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:dectalk@bluegrasspals.com">dectalk@bluegrasspals.com</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [DECtalk] decTalk and speech-fx-inc</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On 7/22/2019 2:51 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>> Hi, Rodger dudly got back to me when I asked him about decTalk licenses. He</p><p class=MsoNormal>> said the following:</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> 1. Speech-fx-inc owns all versions of decTalk.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>DECTalk started out as KlattTalk. Then, became MITalk. DEC acquired</p><p class=MsoNormal>it and gave it the DECtalk name. I think Force bought the IP from</p><p class=MsoNormal>them (not sure if that was before or after Compaq swallowed DEC) and</p><p class=MsoNormal>eventually passed it on to Fonix -- which became Speech-FX.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Note that this covers all of the DECtalk products, hardware and software</p><p class=MsoNormal>based. I am not sure if DK released his personal copyright to the KlattTalk</p><p class=MsoNormal>implementation when MITalk came along. (There are versions of the KlattTalk</p><p class=MsoNormal>source code floating around the web.)</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There are many Klatt-ish synthesizers designs available as much of the</p><p class=MsoNormal>technology behind the underlying design was published and many of the</p><p class=MsoNormal>components of the early versions were also accessible "to the public"</p><p class=MsoNormal>either as scholarly papers or through government-funded grants.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Having said that, there was (and still is!) always room for refinement</p><p class=MsoNormal>so subsequent owners of the IP do have a stake in its later/current form.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> 2. If I want a legal version of decTalk that can be purchased as a good</p><p class=MsoNormal>> NVDA-addon, sapi5, and speak-window-apps, I have to contact a decTalk</p><p class=MsoNormal>> licensee or license holder.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There are several issues related to intellectual property. I suspect</p><p class=MsoNormal>ownership of each of them was transfered completely in each "sale".</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>"DECtalk" is likely a registered trademark (I'd have to check, to be sure).</p><p class=MsoNormal>As such, you can't call something "DECtalk" unless you are theowner of that</p><p class=MsoNormal>trademark.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The source code for the implementation(s) will be covered by copyright</p><p class=MsoNormal>which, no doubt, was assigned to each of these successive owners (otherwise,</p><p class=MsoNormal>the copyright only survives the original author's death by 70 (!) years.</p><p class=MsoNormal>Thereafter, it passes into the public domain. The term used to be longer</p><p class=MsoNormal>for copyrights held by corporate entities but I've not kept up on those</p><p class=MsoNormal>details.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Any novel inventions that were patented would likewise have been</p><p class=MsoNormal>transfered to successive owners. Patents are subject to cancellation</p><p class=MsoNormal>unless actively defended by the patent holder. Any invention that is</p><p class=MsoNormal>not protected by patent can be freely reused by others.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Finally, an IP holder can license his IP to one or more entities in</p><p class=MsoNormal>an exclusive or nonexclusive manner. The terms of the license govern</p><p class=MsoNormal>what the licensor can/can't do with that technology under the license.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Software is typically covered by a license. You, as a user, don't own</p><p class=MsoNormal>the software. Rather, you've purchased a right to use it subject to the</p><p class=MsoNormal>terms of the license that was offered to you. The license is often</p><p class=MsoNormal>transferable -- as the comments from Dudley appear to suggest. If</p><p class=MsoNormal>you purchase a transferable license from a license holder, then you</p><p class=MsoNormal>now have the rights afforded to that license holder. He forfeits his</p><p class=MsoNormal>rights in the process. So, the total number of licenses can never increase</p><p class=MsoNormal>unless the owner of the IP sells additional ones.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> The issue here is all the companies that sold decTalk either don’t exist or</p><p class=MsoNormal>> do not sell it anymore in any form. So its like speech-fx owns something</p><p class=MsoNormal>> that nobody uses anymore and is just sitting on the copyright saying he owns</p><p class=MsoNormal>> it. I don’t think there is any license holders for the decTalk software dll</p><p class=MsoNormal>> files anymore because they</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That's not true. Anyone who legitimately purchased a license is still</p><p class=MsoNormal>the owner of that license. Whether or not they are taking advantage of the</p><p class=MsoNormal>terms of the license is a different story.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> 1. Stopped selling all forms of the product and</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The practical problem, here, is that you'll have a hard time finding these</p><p class=MsoNormal>likely "individual" owners who were end-user purchasers of licenses.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I purchased my first AutoCAD license from a colleague who no longer had</p><p class=MsoNormal>a need for the product -- around version 2.1! Thereafter, I owned his</p><p class=MsoNormal>usage rights to the product (along with the right to upgrade it) and</p><p class=MsoNormal>he, supposedly, stopped using it.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> 2. All companies who sold decTalk access32 went out of business or got</p><p class=MsoNormal>> swallowed up by other bigger companies.</p><p class=MsoNormal>Again, if you find a legitimate Access32 license holder who is willing to</p><p class=MsoNormal>sell (or gift) his license to you, then you become a legitimate license</p><p class=MsoNormal>holder. The value of this transaction is something that you and he set</p><p class=MsoNormal>(my AutoCAD license cost me $1 when AutoCAD was selling for $2000).</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In practice, people pirate software all the time thinking it's a victimless</p><p class=MsoNormal>crime. But, just because you aren't driving your car doesn't mean someone</p><p class=MsoNormal>who really wants or needs it can TAKE it!</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Can you spell "rationalizing"?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Stealing software or other intellectual property discourages owners from</p><p class=MsoNormal>developing or further refining that property. So, thieves and legitimate</p><p class=MsoNormal>users alike suffer. There are lots of techniques that are used to try</p><p class=MsoNormal>to limit this "loss" -- each increases the overall cost of the product</p><p class=MsoNormal>and, possibly, makes it less user-friendly.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>Dectalk mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>Dectalk@bluegrasspals.com</p><p class=MsoNormal>http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>