Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!dmb
From: dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Publishers (copyrights are a _real_ good idea)
Message-ID: <1991May10.234230.4721@wam.umd.edu>
Date: 10 May 91 23:42:30 GMT
References: <1991May10.185652.19983@lsuc.on.ca>
Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET Posting)
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Lines: 114
Nntp-Posting-Host: cscwam

In article <1991May10.185652.19983@lsuc.on.ca> jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes:
>
>1.  Shareware:  I'm getting more and more convinced that this is a
>bad idea.  It's not just a matter of how little money most shareware
>publishers are getting.
> [...]
>     In the long run, there's no real justification for having
>*any* restrictions on *any* files posted to a newsgroup.  Even the
>GNU "copyleft" is nothing by hypocritical masterbation in that sense.
>I will do my best to "respect" such restrictions, but I believe
>it is only right to post TRUE PUBLIC DOMAIN files in Usenet Newsgroups.

These days, as you point out, "Shareware" is essentially the same as
freeware, in that the author gets about enough money to buy a 
sandwich as thanks for distributing the software.  However, you have
to be careful about equating shareware/freeware with so-called
"public domain" software and documents.  "Public domain," of course,
implies that anyone can do whatever they want with it, including
use it verbatim in their own programs, magazine, etc.  (At least
that's impression I get.)

It only takes one company/person/group "stealing" the fruits of
your labors (where "stealing" could be a lot of different things)
before you realize how important copyright notices, distribution
restrictions, etc. are.

I've mentioned this before, but I'll restate it for the benefit
of those who are relatively new to this group:  As many readers
know, I've been editing the "ST Picture Formats List" since
1988.  It has involved a great deal of work on the part of
lots of Usenet folks (by no means just me).  If it weren't
for the cooperation and generosity of the contributors, there would be
NO reference guide to picture formats on the ST.

But until 1990, I had no copyright on there, no distribution
restrictions, etc. because I assumed that anyone printing the list
would give us all credit.  After all, what's the big deal in saying,
"This was created by the following Atari Usenet readers: [names]"?
Or for that matter, why edit out the credits in the first place?

Well, someone (nameless) plagiarzed it outright.  They printed it, made
money off it, and didn't give any of us credit.  In fact, they implied
they'd written it out of the goodness of their hearts.  How sweet.

The point is, there _are_ people out there who are unethical.  Even
something as "simple" as an electronically published FREE document must
be protected.

So there is ABSOLUTELY good reason to put distribution restrictions
and copyright notices on would-be public domain materials, even
documents.  The fact that "legal wording" muddies the water is
no excuse to ignore it.

I don't want people stealing stuff I write/edit/distribute for FREE
and making money off it.  Period.  If I wanted people to have to
pay money for it, I would have distributed it through commercial
channels.  As an example, I'm sure a magazine would have bought
the Picture Formats List as a serial or mini-column, and I could
have made some $$$ off it.  That, however, was not my intention;
I just wanted to help out other ST programmers.   The thanks we
all got for our efforts was to have someone plagiarze it and
charge other people for the information.  So there are two 
sides to the issue, and the issue is by no means simple.

>     Many other magazines crow about their "Public Domain" disks,
>but they don't *pay*.  As such, they survive off the scroungings
>from BBS files and "crippleware" demo files.  As such, they are
>really not doing much to promote real development.

Agreed.  But do they have any responsibility to encourage 
development?  I view magazines that don't encourage software
development (and/or steal things outright) as rags.  I'm sure
I'm not alone there, and that's one of the things that separates
a rag from a quality publication, in my opinion.

>Don't expect to see the "next Tom Hudson" working for them.

The whole Antic Software/STart magazine thing struck me as
conflict of interest.  While I don't remember any blatant
STart magazine plugs of Antic Software, it's still hard 
to imagine a magazine claiming to be unbiased when it has
a 14 page catalog of its own software.  Again, just my opinion.

>                                      I've done so much free work
>over the years you could wallpaper a shopping mall with the
>printouts.  The only thing it gets you is more requests to do
>more free work.

If you do free work for reputation or money or pretty much anything in
the "personal gain" category, you're doing it for the wrong reason,
IMHO.  If you help others in the hope that your attitude will encourage
the others whom you've helped to do the same, then you're probably
going to be happier about the whole situation.  I still think that kind
of attitude is contagious; maybe I just haven't been doing it long
enough to become cynical about it.

Of course there is some satisfication just in seeing other people 
use your software/documentation as well.

>     Anyway, as you can see, my belief is clearly that the only
>"good" ways to market software are either "store shelf" or magazine,
>and if by magazine, one that *pays*.

I can see why one would have that feeling, but I don't think it has to
be quite so black-and-white.  If you whip up a little utility to
convert FOO to BAR, or turn the screen sideways, then what's the big
deal about making it available for free?  If you put many hours of work
into something, then perhaps you'll be willing to go to the trouble of
writing it up for a magazine.  I usually prefer to have immediate
distribution, instead of waiting N+1 months for the final product
to appear in stores/magazines.

Dave Baggett
dmb%wam.umd.edu@uunet.uu.net