Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!srhqla!magnus!levin From: levin@magnus.Hotline.Com (Michael M Levin) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...) Message-ID: <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> Date: 24 Feb 90 21:37:44 GMT References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> Reply-To: levin@magnus.Hotline.Com (Michael M Levin) Organization: Silent Radio, Los Angeles Lines: 157 In article <125816@midas.UUCP> mbennett@midas.UUCP (Mike Bennett) writes: >in article <14010@s.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) says: > >..... vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv >posting this article to the net. They are both my intellectual property. I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > There seem to be a number of points getting lost here. 1). Since all of the sites between the person who posts a piece of shareware, and the site that ultimately ends up using it, are an integral part of the distribution chain for a commercial product, they rightfully should be compensated as well. In normal business practice, there are one or more distributors involved in the selling of most products. They earn a percentage of the profits. That's because they provide a service which is crucial to selling the product: they get it to the end buyer, which is something that the manufacturer by himself is unable to do because of the costs of advertising and customer interface. I think that unless there is compensation, it's about the same as my stopping by 7-Eleven, putting up a display for 'PRODUCT X', for which buyers are to mail money back to me, without the permission of 7-Eleven, and without any compensation to them. I'm using their floor space, their customer base, and their good-will, without their permission. If anything, the law (in this wonderfully capitalistic country) provides much stiffer penalties for mercantile abuse than it does for misuse of intellectual property. 2). "Intellecutual property" doesn't mean that every word I speak, and every line I write, and every thought I express, are MY PROPERTY. Only if I choose to 'publish' something, and if I take steps to protect it, and notify people that I have taken steps to do so, am I entitled to any protection. The law is pretty clear about the issue of taking steps to protect it: using a public domain medium for distribution might very well invalidate that entire protection. 3). The network is inherently 'public domain'. The general attitude is that while 'commercial traffic' (such as product announcements, and job offers, etc.) is tolerated, that is not the primary purpose of the net. The purpose is to allow for the interchange of ideas, and discussions, etc. It is NOT to be used as a distribution medium of products for profit. 4). Unless the 'rules' for the net are revised, such that the understanding of the various parties which hook up to the net and spend millions of dollars carrying traffic is changed, the people who distribute 'shareware' for profit are misusing an awful lot of computer systems. It would be very interesting to to actually conduct a formal poll, and to determine just what the 'rules of the net' really are. In fact, the 'publishers' of shareware, by using the net, may even be guilty of certain laws concerning misuse of other people's computers (such as the laws by which William Morris has been prosecuted). >For discussion, let's say person A posts source to the net. Person B decides >it might be useful, so B "downloads" it (whatever that means). Now, does B >have the right to take that code and sell it to anyone (note that I did not >say the program is shareware)? I think we all agree that B does not have that >right. I tend to agree, but only because the publisher of such material has essentially abided by the 'rules of the net' in sharing an intellectual property (not 'distributing a product'), and that the only protection being sought is for the general good: by NOT charging money for a property he has placed into the public domain. > However, is B free to give the source away? I think we all agree that >B does have that right - and probably most would agree that the Copyright >notice is part of the source and should be kept with the source. So, it seems >we have no problem if someone posts source to the net, we pay the expense to >get it here, download it, use it, and pass it on to someone else. Again, for the 'general good'. Not because the so-called 'copyright' is included, but rather as an issue involving plagiarism. If another party SELLS my intellectual property, he is a plagiarist. If he gives it away for free, after I have allowed him to, he isn't claiming any sort of ownership nor seeking to profit by it. > >Now for the hard part. What happens (or should happen) when someone adds >something to the effect of "send me money to use this" in the distribution. >Let's look at a comparable problem. A number of years ago, home satellite >dishes became popular. You could go out and buy the dish, set it up in your >backyard and receive any signal you wanted (limited only by your receiver). >Of course, this didn't please the cable networks such as ESPN, HBO, Showtime, >and Cinemax, et al. They wanted people to PAY for their signal so they decided >to scramble their signal. Now, you could still receive the signal through >your receiver, but it was unintelligible. You were forced to buy a descrambler >and pay monthly fees to receive a clear signal. Of course, we all know that >bootleg descramblers exist which you can purchase for a onetime fee and avoid >the monthly charge. However, we also all know this is illegal. Why? I'm not a >lawyer so I can't answer that question, but that does not change the fact that >decoding this signal is illegal - even though it arrives at my home without >me asking for it. > Selling a decoder, for the purpose of illegally tapping into a private radio transmission, is a criminal offense-- not a civil one. This involves the FCC (which has some rather bizarre and out-of-date ideas about the ownership of the 'air waves'). This is tantamount to tapping into a telephone line, or eavesdropping. It has NOTHING what- so-ever to do with copyright. >I suppose you know the substitutions I want to make in the above paragraph, >so I won't rewrite the entire thing. Suffice it to say that the net is the >satellite dish, shareware authors are ESPN, HBO, et al, the uuencoded source >is the signal, and uudecode is the descrambler (or substitute arc for >uu[en|de]code). I believe this is a very strong legal argument for following >the guidelines of the shareware author (pay or don't use). An interesting >addendum to this argument is the situation with my cable company. Although I >am technically capable of adding additional outlets in my home for the cable >signal I receive, I am not allowed to do so without increasing my monthly >payment to the cable company. In other words, there would be an additional >charge for using the same signal I receive now. > That's a contractual issue. Look at the cable TV contract you signed when you set up service. It contains an agreement by you to not add any additional taps. Again, this has nothing to do with copyright. You have the right to hook up as many telephone extensions as you like in your home (which was something that MA BELL used to think they had the right to bar you from doing). Again, this is an issue involving contract, and possibly city ordinance. It is not relevant. >Having said all of the above, my advice to shareware authors is this: its >obvious that no amount of arguing is going to pursuade some people to do >what they should. They are only out to take all they can get for as little >as possible, regardless of scruples, ethics, morals - whatever. I would >not want to do business with these people based on this information. I prefer >dealing with honest people who do not try to skirt their obligations, implied >or stated, or walk the line between legal and illegal. If you feel your code >is good enough to be shareware and you desire it to be so, post an article >stating what you have available and have people "order" it for a trial period >by mailing you with their return address. This, then, legally obligates them >to send the money you ask if they decide to use it or destroy their copy if >they decide not to use it. > If you're talking about using a floppy disk, or some such, as the distribution medium, I agree with you. >It is my opinion that this whole discussion is a direct outgrowth of the >kind of "Ivan Boesky" ethics people hold to today. What a shame. > You are trying to argue that a law such as copyright- created for the purpose of protecting book authors and artists from being ripped off- is one that can or should be stretched to the limit to try and justify ripping off tens of thousands of computer sites around the country of millions of dollars for some individual's profit. Who is it that has the 'Ivan Boesky' ethics? Mike Levin -- _ _ | | ___ ___ |_| ___ Michael Levin SilentRadio Headquarters- Los Angeles | |/ ._\| | || || \ 20732 Lassen Street, Chatsworth CA 91311 U.S.A. |_|\___/ \_/ |_||_|_| E-Mail: levin@Hotline.Com {att|csun|srhqla}!magnus!mml