🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes:
>If you're saying that posting shareware to USENET gives everybody ownership
>of a copy, then what are the consequences of this?

That's precisely what the copyright laws say. Yes, I have ownership of a
COPY, not the COPYRIGHT. There are subtle differences here. There are no
consequences of this because of the simple fact that it DOESN'T CHANGE
ANYTHING! We, as UseNet readers, are just as bound by copyright as
anyone else is. The issue here is what rights copyright gives you as the
holder of that copyright.

>
>Which lawyer said this, anyway?  The consequence would be that shareware
>in a distributed net is impossible -- is this what you desire?
>
If we are talking ShareWare as you apparently define it, then perhaps
that is what I seek. You are arguing from an unenforceable position. As
the holder of the copyright, the burden of proof is on YOU. If you
contend that I have illegally acquired a copy of your software, then it
is incumbent on YOU to prove that I have done so. It is my contention
that because YOU GAVE ME A COPY any attempt by you to show that I
illegally obtained my copy is ludicrous. This though is all an
infringement of copyright suit can do. As others have stated, copyright
protects only copying and distribution, not use.

I don't think that ShareWare in a distributed net is impossible, just
that ShareWare AS YOU WISH IT TO BE IMPLEMENTED is impossible. As I have
suggested time and again, rather than complaining about issues that
clearly cannot be changed, why not do something constructive to increase
the probability that someone will pay?

>
>Shareware is a good concept, because it benefits the user a great deal.

I certainly agree.

>Based on figures of shareware success, it benefits the user a great deal
>more than the author.   After all, one of the whole ideas behind
>shareware is that the traditional distribution mechanism (expensive
>packaging, distributors, stores etc.) is a big cost that just gets
>passed on to the customer.   With no try-before-you-buy.

I have no problem with this, except that the traditional distribution
mechanism is the only viable way to ensure that payment is received for
purchases. It is also the only way to ensure that the purchaser and the
supplier are engaged in a legal contract.

>I still maintain that posting to USENET no more gives away the software
>than posting to a BBS or Compuserve.

Except for the fact that the UseNet is broadcast around the globe. The
receiver is not going out of his/her way to SPECIFICALLY obtain a piece
of ShareWare. On the BBS or Compuserve, I must Specifically download.

>Why?  For one thing, the stuff that was posted can't be used.  It wasn't
>in a usable form, much like most USENET postings.   You have to go to
>some trouble, including copying the software, unpacking it (copying it
>again), compiling it and then using it.

Let's not get caught up in trivia. Under Canada's copyright laws, a
legally obtained copy of a copyrighted item can be copied for the
private use of the legal owner of that copy. For instance, if I buy a
record and then tape it, I am leagally entitled to do so if the copy is
for my own use (my Walkman(tm) for example). Copying in the manner you
mention is perfectly legal provided the original was obtained legally.
Again, you gave it to me by broadcasting it on the net.

>All these are voluntary acts which you must take before using the
>software, and I don't see why anybody thinks that 'downloading' is
>a special act which makes the shareware terms valid, but all those
>other acts don't.   Most shareware that's posted is clearly marked as
>such, and contains english information that you can read without
>copying, unpacking etc.   Anybody who takes the further step of unpacking
>is no different than anybody who downloads.  Can you come up with an
>argument to the contrary?

See above.

>-- 
>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473

The final thing I'd like to say is that I'm not convinced that a
commercial venture in the manner you describe is viable. No amount of
legislation can make a non-viable business viable. I do feel that a
commercial venture along the lines of distributing the software and
providing tangible benefits for paying the requested fee MAY be viable.
I honestly don't know. I would recommend reading Robert A. Heinlein's
story "Life-Line", particularly the scene in court. Life-Line can be
found in "The Past Through Tomorrow", an anthology published by The
Berkley Publishing Group. ISBN: 0-425-06458-1.

    God Grant me the Serenity to Accept the Things I Cannot Change
	The Courage to Change the Things I Can
	    And the Wisdom to Know the Difference.

	Cheers,
	Bruce.

==============================================================================
Bruce Thompson			| "I've got this terrible pain in all the
NovAtel Communications Ltd.	| diodes down my left side" - Marvin the
brucet@ksi.cpsc.UCalgary.CA	| Paranoid Android

The opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of
NovAtel Communications Ltd. nor those of The University of Calgary.