🚀 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...

What is CompuServe's policy when the stuff posted on CompuServe
was posted by people who obtained the stuff from another net?
E.g., if someone took Grep-Wc from Usenet/Delphi and put in
on CompuServe, I wouldn't be real thrilled about CompuServe
asserting hegemony over MY software.

Maybe I should copyright it, and then sue 'em!  :-)
-- 
Paul DuBois     UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois    |
                ARPA: dubois@easter                               --+--
                      dubois@rhesus (no kidding)                    |
                                                                    |
"If it works, I didn't write it."
"That's for sure!"

> 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

In article <812@gould9.UUCP>, joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) writes:
> 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.

	Don't believe everything you read. The report in Infoworld
is inaccurate and incomplete. I am not saying that Compuserve is all
that great, but the facts in this matter were distorted as they went
through the grapevine, and I think Compuserve got a bit of a bum rap.

	(espen@well)
> 

In article <812@gould9.UUCP> joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) writes:
>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.
>
This is a good example of why I don't subscribe to Infoworld.

Here is what really happened:

	1. Someone logs into the BBS in question, and finds a lot
	of stuff that is *NOT* public domain that was downloaded
	from CIS ( Compuserve ).

	2. That person tells CIS.  CIS asks Neil Shapiro, chief
	Sysop of MAUG(tm) to see if this is true.

	3. Neil calls BBS.  Finds it is true.  Also finds an
	announcement that says that this BBS is downloading
	all the new stuff from the major networks every week,
	and for a $25 yearly fee to the BBS owner, there is
	no need to subscribe to CIS ( or any of the other
	networks ).

	3a. Neil also deleted from MAUG(tm) a message announcing
	this BBS, since it is against MAUG(tm) and CIS policy to
	allow announcements of competing commercial services,
	which this BBS clearly is.

	4. CIS lawyers tell BBS operator to stop making available
	copyrighted material without the permission of the
	copyright holder.

	5. Infoworld writes story without even contacting MAUG(tm)
	to find out their side of the story!

It is pefectly OK with CIS for people to distribute public domain stuff
that they get off of CIS.  For stuff that is copyrighted, CIS policy is
that you must get the permission of the copyright holder.

For example, I have two desk accessories on CIS at the moment.  One of
them ( Maxwell ) states that it is public domain.  CIS has no objection
to anyone doing whatever they want with it.

The other one ( HFS Find ) has a copyright notice.  If anyone distributes
that without asking me, CIS will be upset.  This seems very reasonable to
me.  I think it is nice that if I upload a coyrighted work to CIS, then
they will use their lawyers to enforce my rights.

-- 
member, all HASA divisions              POELOD  ECBOMB
					--------------
					       ^-- Secret Satanic Message

Tim Smith       USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim   Compuserve: 72257,3706
		Delphi or GEnie: mnementh

>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....

This is interesting, as many public domain programs have notices specifically
PROHIBITING anyone else to claim ANY rights to that work. . .

I'd just love to see CompuServe try this in court.

-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc. (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
                (No others need apply, though)

In article <8050@sun.uucp>, chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach; Lord of the OtherRealms) writes:
> 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.  

I gather that Chuq has not checked the facts directly, but is willing to
take CompuServe's word as fact -- a dubious proposition, but I'll stipulate
it, since it really has no bearing on my point.

CompuServe did announce a policy of copyrighting what is on their system.  
It was sufficiently overbroad and vague to leave the policy ambiguous 
absent any enforcement efforts.  On this first real test of the policy,
it is unfortunate that InfoWorld did not get more information (violating 
the standard rule of Journalism 101.)

However, this still leaves unresolved the issue of whether CompuServe's
policy is fair, legal or viable.  (That I believe it is not was the point
of my one sentence.)  We won't know what their actual policy is until 
several enforcement efforts (or the absence of any enforcement efforts.)  
If a non-profit user group is selling pd disks for $6, will CompuServe 
go after them?  Or what if the same user group sells BBS memberships
for $20/year?  Either are certainly cheaper ways to get the software than 
downloading it at 1200 baud and $X/hour.
-- 
	Joel West			     MCI Mail: 282-8879
	Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA  92083
	{cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
	joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA

I subscribe to GEnie (which is MUCH cheaper than Compuserve, but seems to
have all the things I'm looking for).  There has been a big discussion there
about the Compuserve "copyright".  Evidently, Compuserve does not claim to
have copyright to the programs themselves, but only their COLLECTION of them.
They are claiming (correctly or not) that if you get it from C-serve, you
are not allowed to redistribute it.  But if you get the same program from
somewhere else, the fact that it is also on Compuserve does not deny you the
right to distribute it.

I doubt that any single package would bring the ire of compuserve on someone.
What they don't want to happen is exactly what seems to have happened with
this BBS operator--someone downloading x zillion bytes of stuff from C-serve
and then reposting it on his BBS.  He even said, (evidently) "I got this
from Compuserve."

I'm not trying to justify C-serve's policy (seems a little fishy to me), but
I did want to make it clear that they aren't claiming copyright to every
package put there, just to their collection of them.
-------

Steve Dorner
University of Illinois Computing Services Office
dorner@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU, ihnp4!cbosgd!uiucdcs!uxc!dorner

I am the OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN not only of UIUC, but of the State of Illinois,
The President of the United States, and the EMPEROR of the WORLD.  All my
decisions are final.

I subscribe to GEnie (which is MUCH cheaper than Compuserve, but seems to
have all the things I'm looking for).  There has been a big discussion there
about the Compuserve "copyright".  Evidently, Compuserve does not claim to
have copyright to the programs themselves, but only their COLLECTION of them.
They are claiming (correctly or not) that if you get it from C-serve, you
are not allowed to redistribute it.  But if you get the same program from
somewhere else, the fact that it is also on Compuserve does not deny you the
right to distribute it.

I doubt that any single package would bring the ire of compuserve on someone.
What they don't want to happen is exactly what seems to have happened with
this BBS operator--someone downloading x zillion bytes of stuff from C-serve
and then reposting it on his BBS.  He even said, (evidently) "I got this
from Compuserve."

I'm not trying to justify C-serve's policy (seems a little fishy to me), but
I did want to make it clear that they aren't claiming copyright to every
package put there, just to their collection of them.
-------

Steve Dorner
University of Illinois Computing Services Office
dorner@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU, ihnp4!cbosgd!uiucdcs!uxc!dorner

I am the OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN not only of UIUC, but of the State of Illinois,
The President of the United States, and the EMPEROR of the WORLD.  All my
decisions are final.

In article <3828@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
> 	4. CIS lawyers tell BBS operator to stop making available
> 	copyrighted material without the permission of the
> 	copyright holder.
> 
> It is pefectly OK with CIS for people to distribute public domain stuff
> that they get off of CIS.  For stuff that is copyrighted, CIS policy is
> that you must get the permission of the copyright holder.

There seems to be some confusion about distributing copyrighted material.
Many programs freely available have notices by the author that you are
free to distribute it and give copies away to your friends. The same
programs usually also contain copyright notices. The only thing the author
wants to prevent is profiteering (which the BBS operator obviously was)
and someone calling the program there own and then redistributing it
either for self admiration or profit.

If the author says that copies may be freely distributed, then copyright
or not there seems to be nothing wrong with taking it off CIS and then
redistributing it on USENET or other BBS as long as it is not for profit
or personal gain.

Sal

Sal Barbagallo writes:
> Tim Smith [ that's me!] writes:
>> that they get off of CIS.  For stuff that is copyrighted, CIS policy is
>> that you must get the permission of the copyright holder.
>
[ he is talking about programs that say they may be freely distributed ]
> If the author says that copies may be freely distributed, then copyright
> or not there seems to be nothing wrong with taking it off CIS and then
> redistributing it on USENET or other BBS as long as it is not for profit
> or personal gain.

Exactly.  If a program says that it may be freely distributed, then CIS
considers that as being "permission of the copyright holder".

This is for non-commercial redistribution.  They restrict commercial
redistribution by the service agreement every CIS subscriber must sign.
This has nothing to do with copyright.

For more information, see the article I am about to post that contains
a statement by Neil Shapiro of MAUG(tm) on the Inforworld/Sande incident,
and a statement of CIS' policies.
-- 
member, all HASA divisions              POELOD  ECBOMB
                                        --------------
                                               ^-- Secret Satanic Message

Tim Smith       USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim   Compuserve: 72257,3706
                Delphi or GEnie: mnementh