🚀 go-pugleaf

> According to October 6, 1986 InfoWorld:
> 	   Compuserve Information Service has threatened a bulletin
> 	board operator with legal action for offering on his board
> 	public domain programs he obtained on-line from Compuserve.
> 	   Compuserve, a common source for public domain programs,
> 	said it considered the entire contents of its service to be
> 	copyrighted, a pokciy that caused user outcry when it was
> 	first adopted last year....
> 	   [The BBS operator] received a registered letter from
> 	Compuserve's attorneys stating that he was infringing on
> 	Compuserve's copyright.  The letter threatened him with
> 	civil and criminal action...
> 
> This is a good example of why I subscribe to USENET and not to
> Compuserve.

Joel did the same thing InfoWorld did -- neglect to check the facts before
flaming.

According to CompuServe, the BBS operator was not sent the letter over
public domain or shareware material, but over files that were copyrighted
either by an author or by CompuServe that this BBS operator was downloading
and redistributing without permission.

On top of this, the operator was making this material available on his BBS
for a fee of $25 (i.e. he was out to profit on compuServe material) and he
was advertising this BBS on CompuServe and telling people that this was
an alternative to paying CompuServe for the material they were supplying.

The letter was sent after a number of authors who put copyrighted material
on compuServe complained to them about the infringement.

InforWorld blew it.  They never bothered to call Neil Shapiro (SYSOP of
MAUG on CompuServe) or CompuServe to check facts, they just published what
the BBS operator said.  The BBS operator was breaking the law, and was
generally acting like a (well, never mind) trying to make a quick buck off
of other people's work.

Before you flame, check your facts.

chuq