🚀 go-pugleaf

in article <14010@s.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) says:
> 
> 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?
> 
> [discussion about good shareware, bad shareware, etc. deleted]
> 
> If you willingly post your copy to Usenet, or passively allow it to be
> posted with no contest, then every single solitary soul that recieves a
> copy OWNS that copy. They can execute it, make archival copies, put
> that copy on the space shuttle, make a T-shirt out of it, or even sell
> their copy.
> 
> [more stuff deleted]
>
> The program is your intellectual property, but you do NOT have the right
> to say what people do with legitimately obtained copies of that property
> unless there is a previous contract. All you can do is limit copying and
> exhibition.

This whole discussion about shareware reminds me of a lot of bandwidth spent
sometime last year about a different, albeit similar, topic. I think it is
very appropriate that Brad enter the discussion because he was deeply 
involved in the other topic of debate. Some of you may recall Brad's 
announcement that he intended to take some jokes from rec.humor.funny (I think)
and bind them in a "book" and make them available for sale. There was a LOT
of discussion about how he couldn't just take articles from the net that
someone else posted and make a profit on them. As a result of that discussion,
I now see that a number of people have added Copyrights to their .signature
files.

I'm very confused about the whole matter. There are those who say, "Anything
I take off the net is mine to use as I please." Some go so far as to say
they can sell it (as Sean did above), while others say they can decide if
the program is good enough for them and, if they determine it is, then they
have no obligation (you can take it as moral, ethical, or legal - it doesn't
matter to me) to the author of the program. As far as I can tell, there is
no difference between me posting a very usable program in source form or
posting this article to the net. They are both my intellectual property. I
have yet to see someone dispute this point. I see the point of dispute being
whether someone MUST pay for the program if the author requests it. This is
what I intend to address.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

-- 
Encore Computer Corporation, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
.....!{uunet,sun,pur-ee,brl-smoke}!gould!mbennett
I am paid to work and to think for my employer - so I do.
I am NOT paid to speak for my employer - so I don't.