Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!ukma!s.ms.uky.edu!sean From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) Newsgroups: alt.sources.d Subject: Re: Charging the net.... Message-ID: Date: 22 Apr 91 21:35:59 GMT References: <1566@tronsbox.xei.com> <1991Apr22.081417@mccall.com> <1991Apr22.192306.29134@looking.on.ca> Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY Lines: 50 Brad Templeton has a point, however I think it needs to be considered in the light of intent. It can be argued that executing a program is making a copy or a derivative work (it must be copied into ram). The courts, however, have ruled that it is a necessary step in the use of such a program and don't constitute copying per-se. The courts have also modified that view in the more recent context of networking, where it may be possible to load onto more than one cpu at a time, even if only one copy of the software is on disk. If someone sticks shareware on my machine, it can be argued that it is then mine, and that dearchiving and compiling it are *necessary steps* in the use of such software, and that they don't constitute copyright violation or imply any agreement towards a license. I think the courts are no more likely to consider it a copyright infringement than they would if I mailed you something shrink-wrapped for free, and then said don't open it and use it if you're not going to pay. One has to understand that these cases are usually argued in the greater context. The fact that copying occurs does not necessarily mean that there is copyright infringement. Only the court can say it is so. In this case, I feel the courts would decide in favor of the shareware recipient and not the author. I disapprove of the shareware concept because I don't like the idea of someone sending me something unsolicited (or even putting it in a public place where it is known people will copy it) and then telling me what I can and can't do with it. I don't even care about the money part. Sooner or later some organization with deep pockets will take the issue to court, and we'll see. Until then, the issue is not nearly as cut and dried as Brad Templeton would have you believe. My bet is that the courts will rule that such "implied licenses" are invalid (as they have often ruled shrink wrap licenses are invalid) and that dearchiving, compiling, or any other necessary step in its use does not constitute copyright infringement. "Grassroots" profiteering is NOT in the spirit of Usenet. Usenet has been traditionally free. There is no Usenet tradition of binding people to licenses and requiring payment. Traditionally, anything one picked up from Usenet could be used without fear of litigation. I don't want that to change. Sean Casey -- ** Sean Casey