🚀 go-pugleaf

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