Forum unknown
· Help/Announcements
#CompuS Copyright
175 messages in this thread
I read a very disturbing article in today's InfoWorld. It seems like
CompuServe is suing a bbs sysop who posted public domain software
downloaded from CIS to his bbs. CIS says they have a copyright on anything
and everything in their databases. If this is true, I don't plan to upload
a single thing, since I don't create software just to give CIS a copyright
on it. The copyright is _mine_. Besides that, this CIS policy violates
the entire idea of public domain software. Can anyone verify this? If
it's true, do we want to continue to "give" our work and efforts to
CIS????? If this message sounds angry, you're reading it right!!!!!!
Jan,Don't know about Infoworld,However a local BBS here in Denver was set
up and he charged a nominal yearly rate,he in turn got stuff off of ci$ and
other nets, and we dl'ed them saving lot's of connect time. Well CI$ sent
him a letter saying he could'nt charge and he was forced to shut
down.Really doesn't seem fair huh? Bye, Michael Cohoon 70107,1670
Jan,Don't know about Infoworld,However a local BBS here in Denver was set
up and he charged a nominal yearly rate,he in turn got stuff off of ci$ and
other nets, and we dl'ed them saving lot's of connect time. Well CI$ sent
him a letter saying he could'nt charge and he was forced to shut
down.Really doesn't seem fair huh? Bye, Michael Cohoon 70107,1670
I believe that CIS does get copyright to what you upload, but not to the
program itself, so that you can't download it and then try to make money on
it (by having it on your BBS), but the author can give you a copy of it for
you to use.
As a programmer with many programs in the DLs, I >DO NOT< want any of my
programs on anybody's BBS without my permission. I realize that that's a
hopeless cause, but many of the programs are works-in-progress that may
have bugs, and if the docs don't follow the program someone may think I am
a flaky programmer (among other things). — Mike
CIS claims an anthology (compilation) copyright. The precedent is from the
publishing arena. There are many anthologies of short stories (the stories
themselves may be public domain or included in the anthology by permission
of the author (or copyright holder). What is copyrighted by the publisher
is everything EXCEPT the stories themselves — the forward, table of
contents, index, and (the important part here) the sum of the stories —
meaning that another publisher may not publish a similar book with exactly
the same titles in the same order as original anthology. No individual
author's rights are violated and no claims are made against any work in the
collection.
What CIS is saying is that the databases here (each DL in each forum could
be considered an anthology) as a whole is protected by a compilation
copyright. A bbs may not download (and make available) a DL in it's
entirety.
Many files found in forum DLs on CompuServe are there by the express
permission of the author — and the author has stated in the description or
in the program itself that CIS and/or the forum maybe the only means of
distribution (of course, I'm speaking of programs that are NOT public
domain but copyrighted material with a limited distribution license).
MAUG(tm) has an agreement with Apple for the distribution of certain
materials copyrighted by Apple. The license to distribute is given solely
to MAUG(tm). In this particular case, if CompuServe had not stepped in (at
the request and insistance of one of the authors whose rights had been
violated) Apple would (probably) have had to get involved to protect the
copyright on their programs distributed thru MAUG(tm).
(continued)…
The unfortunate part is that CIS's policy is widely misinterpreted. It's
original intent was to protect the author's rights — not to try to usurp
them. There is also confusion in many people's minds regarding the
difference between public domain software and freely distributable
software. Public domain is just that — all rights to the program have
been relinquished. Freely distributable software is something quite
different. It's software that the author wants to be distributed and the
author controls just what distribution channels he wants to use — whether
it's a particular commercial service, bbs, paper tape duplication only —
whatever. The author gives up no rights to his work. Unless there is an
expressed statement from the author distribution of such material cannot
legally be done through other channels. PD and freely distributable
copyrighted programs are not one and the same.
Sorry to ramble on but your message gave me an opening!
Thanks for clarifying that. I like CIS's policy. —Mike
Thanks for clarifying that. I like CIS's policy. —Mike
The unfortunate part is that CIS's policy is widely misinterpreted. It's
original intent was to protect the author's rights — not to try to usurp
them. There is also confusion in many people's minds regarding the
difference between public domain software and freely distributable
software. Public domain is just that — all rights to the program have
been relinquished. Freely distributable software is something quite
different. It's software that the author wants to be distributed and the
author controls just what distribution channels he wants to use — whether
it's a particular commercial service, bbs, paper tape duplication only —
whatever. The author gives up no rights to his work. Unless there is an
expressed statement from the author distribution of such material cannot
legally be done through other channels. PD and freely distributable
copyrighted programs are not one and the same.
Sorry to ramble on but your message gave me an opening!
CIS claims an anthology (compilation) copyright. The precedent is from the
publishing arena. There are many anthologies of short stories (the stories
themselves may be public domain or included in the anthology by permission
of the author (or copyright holder). What is copyrighted by the publisher
is everything EXCEPT the stories themselves — the forward, table of
contents, index, and (the important part here) the sum of the stories —
meaning that another publisher may not publish a similar book with exactly
the same titles in the same order as original anthology. No individual
author's rights are violated and no claims are made against any work in the
collection.
What CIS is saying is that the databases here (each DL in each forum could
be considered an anthology) as a whole is protected by a compilation
copyright. A bbs may not download (and make available) a DL in it's
entirety.
Many files found in forum DLs on CompuServe are there by the express
permission of the author — and the author has stated in the description or
in the program itself that CIS and/or the forum maybe the only means of
distribution (of course, I'm speaking of programs that are NOT public
domain but copyrighted material with a limited distribution license).
MAUG(tm) has an agreement with Apple for the distribution of certain
materials copyrighted by Apple. The license to distribute is given solely
to MAUG(tm). In this particular case, if CompuServe had not stepped in (at
the request and insistance of one of the authors whose rights had been
violated) Apple would (probably) have had to get involved to protect the
copyright on their programs distributed thru MAUG(tm).
(continued)…
The way we handle uploads in the Programmers Network, is that we encourage
distribution of our uploads. If someone wants to put a program on
another system, we politely ask people to contact the authors of the work
and get approval from them. This way, THE ORIGIONAL AUTHOR makes the
decision which system can distribute the program.
It is the policy of the Programmers Network to make sure that those systems
claiming that they OWN a program, is the LAST one to get it. This way, the
program will get a much wider distribution, and it will have already been
posted on all the private BBS's FIRST, then the greedy commercial systems
can HAVE it.
Eventually, the commercial systems like CIS, BIX, and the others will wise
up, and get hip to the fact that PD software is FREE and should be
distributed as widly as possible.
I know that the WELL policy is much more lenient, perhaps thats why they
have such a rich library, also more SOURCE code is available.
I hope that CIS will open up. At least they are improving by having FREE
uploads. So SOMETHING is getting through.
Crunch,
CIS policy does NOT prohibit continued distribution of material posted
here. It does prohibit the wholesale downloading of an entire DL and then
posting of that library to another service. Just like Steve's message
said. The collection is copyrighted, NOT the individual works by CIS.
Don
Guys,
Consider this…CompuServe has people, (whom they pay quite a bit) getting
out there into the Amiga World soliciting "freely distributed" software.
CompuServe spends a bunch of money (believe me I know, I work there) trying
to provide state of the art videotext services.
The people you heard were getting sued probably downloaded those data
library files 1)without the author's permission, 2)with full intent of
adding value to their own bulletin boards, and in fact, competing with CIS
using their own data!!!!! Not only is that unethical from a "author's
permission" standpoint, but it is not smart business.
For those of you who want to believe that CIS exists "out of the goodness
of their little videotex heart, for you to exploit and abuse", well, I
guess you don't realize how much work actually goes into the services
provided here on CIS.
I do, I work hard to make the software, and the data available on CIS the
best it can be. Joe Blow's BBS will cost you less in connect charges, and
may even not charge you for downloads, but Joe's service doesn't provide
you with the quality, the extent, and the integrity, that CIS does. I
guarantee that if you download a file from the DL it was originally put
there by someone, who was intending it to be on CIS, not Joe's service.
Besides…if you can read, and you did before you signed your agreement to
receive your CIS number, you will find out that you are restricted in how
you "distribute" materials you receive from CIS. The SYSOP has explained
why that rule exists, and if you are a programmer, you can appreciate the
logic of the rule.
I really object to this policy, and I say that as a bbs operator. Much of
the UNIX software on my board has been developed, tested and debugged by
members of the non-profit orgranization for which I operate the system. Our
intent is to distribute this software as widely as possible (we cater to
academic computer users) and to get it used in colleges and universities.
We _want_ people to download it, use it, and even send it over netnews. It
was public domain stuff before we fiddled with it, and even though our
modifications and documentation may be significant, we really want to
share. I haven't placed any copyright on my board, and I don't intend to.
CIS makes it's money as I sit here typing this message. You work hard, and
so do I – but nobody pays me… jan
Jan,
I think you mentioned an interesting point there. Your BBS services a
non-profit organization. CompuServe is a 'for profit' organization. I'm
sure that the policy that was enforced was design to thwart our competition
from using CompuServe's resources for profit, as has happened in the past,
not to stifle the public domain concept.
CompuServe also has a responsibility to its customers. Both those that
upload and those that download. Files here range from free-to-distribute
to pieces which authors prefer to not have uploaded to other services
without expressed permission. The policy may seem a bit harsh, but it
seems that many who have responded to you (a majority of whom do most of
the uploading to this forum) agree with its principle.
Denny
I don't disagree in principle. In fact, my original anger was based on the
InfoWorld article, which apparently was in error. Right now, what I feel
is "betrayed" by a publication that I had come to trust. I will clearly
mark my uploads as public domain so that people know that I mean for them
to be shared. jan
I don't disagree in principle. In fact, my original anger was based on the
InfoWorld article, which apparently was in error. Right now, what I feel
is "betrayed" by a publication that I had come to trust. I will clearly
mark my uploads as public domain so that people know that I mean for them
to be shared. jan
Jan,
I think you mentioned an interesting point there. Your BBS services a
non-profit organization. CompuServe is a 'for profit' organization. I'm
sure that the policy that was enforced was design to thwart our competition
from using CompuServe's resources for profit, as has happened in the past,
not to stifle the public domain concept.
CompuServe also has a responsibility to its customers. Both those that
upload and those that download. Files here range from free-to-distribute
to pieces which authors prefer to not have uploaded to other services
without expressed permission. The policy may seem a bit harsh, but it
seems that many who have responded to you (a majority of whom do most of
the uploading to this forum) agree with its principle.
Denny
Jan,
I agree entirely. When an author releases a program to the public domain,
99% of them want that program to be distributed as widely as possible. The
AUTHOR has the right to request restricted distribution, CIS (and other
networks) DON'T. Check out the November issue of Compute! for more on this
topic. A number of people think CIS' policy stinks and is a total
antithesis to the concept of PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Jon
Jon,
WRONG!!!! Please read the message base. CIS does NOT claim ANY rights to
your software. What they do claim is the compilation copyright…in other
words. They state that any one of the databases is a compilation of
individual works and as such may not be downloaded as a whole and re-posted
on another network. The individual files are controled by the AUTHOR
ONLY! If the author of the individual file either places it in the public
domain or places it in the freely distributable copyrighted material
category, then you MAY download it and distribute it. If the AUTHOR (not
CIS), places the material into limited distribution or exclusive
distribution, then you may NOT download the file and re-post it.
Don
Don,
Has any {_pa{_rticular NUMBER of files been established that would
constitute a group, or is it just more than one file.
Crunch,
Hummm….I can't answer that one exactly, I'm sure Steve will see it and
answer or perhaps Dave Paul. I'll find out if I can. I would presume
they mean the whole database or a major portion of it but DON'T take that
as policy until I get a definite answer.
Don
Yea!! It is rather nit-pickin, but a quantitive number or better
definition of the rules or policies should be noted and broadcast to all
CIS users.
Yea!! It is rather nit-pickin, but a quantitive number or better
definition of the rules or policies should be noted and broadcast to all
CIS users.
Crunch,
Hummm….I can't answer that one exactly, I'm sure Steve will see it and
answer or perhaps Dave Paul. I'll find out if I can. I would presume
they mean the whole database or a major portion of it but DON'T take that
as policy until I get a definite answer.
Don
Don,
Has any {_pa{_rticular NUMBER of files been established that would
constitute a group, or is it just more than one file.
Don,
If that is indeed what they are saying, then there is no problem. BUT, as
little as a month or two ago, they (and the sysops here for that matter)
were saying that CIS would frown on a person downloading a single file
(even if it specifically said that it was PD and freely distributable) from
CIS and uploading it/distributing it elsewhere. THAT is what I think
stinks. If they have reversed their opinion of what their rules *really*
mean, then all I can say is GREAT!
Jon
Jon,
That is not what was said a few months ago. That is what alot of folks
thought was said. The plain fact of the matter is that the Author retains
ALL of his rights when he uploads a file here. The author as holder of
the copyright has the right to allow anyone to use his program in anyway
the author deems fit. CIS only holds a compilation copyright…in other
words a copyright on the collection, not the individual files. There IS a
difference.
Don
Don,
We talked about this a little in CO tonight, but I thought I'd answer in
the messages anyway. In Selby Bateman's "CompuServe and Public Domain"
article in the November Compute! magazine, Rich Baker (director of
corporate communications for CompuServe) is said to have said…
That means no copies of any public domain software can be made legally
for distribution without prior written permission from CompuServe,
he says.
As you can tell from the last two words, this is attributed to him but is
not a direct quote of his words. Later in the article, though there is a
direct quote:
"It's just like any other copyright. They [down/uploaders] would
make application in writing to us, and we would review it and
respond in writing with permission or denial."
Frankly, this looks bad.
Jon
Don,
We talked about this a little in CO tonight, but I thought I'd answer in
the messages anyway. In Selby Bateman's "CompuServe and Public Domain"
article in the November Compute! magazine, Rich Baker (director of
corporate communications for CompuServe) is said to have said…
That means no copies of any public domain software can be made legally
for distribution without prior written permission from CompuServe,
he says.
As you can tell from the last two words, this is attributed to him but is
not a direct quote of his words. Later in the article, though there is a
direct quote:
"It's just like any other copyright. They [down/uploaders] would
make application in writing to us, and we would review it and
respond in writing with permission or denial."
Frankly, this looks bad.
Jon
Jon,
That is not what was said a few months ago. That is what alot of folks
thought was said. The plain fact of the matter is that the Author retains
ALL of his rights when he uploads a file here. The author as holder of
the copyright has the right to allow anyone to use his program in anyway
the author deems fit. CIS only holds a compilation copyright…in other
words a copyright on the collection, not the individual files. There IS a
difference.
Don
Don,
If that is indeed what they are saying, then there is no problem. BUT, as
little as a month or two ago, they (and the sysops here for that matter)
were saying that CIS would frown on a person downloading a single file
(even if it specifically said that it was PD and freely distributable) from
CIS and uploading it/distributing it elsewhere. THAT is what I think
stinks. If they have reversed their opinion of what their rules *really*
mean, then all I can say is GREAT!
Jon
OK, let's forget about the Sande case, and let's also assume that Levitan's
article had factual errors. What about the OTHER article in the November
COMPUTE!, the one titled "CompuServe and the Public Domain"? In reference
to a discussion with Mr. Rich Baker, director of corporate communications
for CIS, the article alleges that
"CompuServe's user agreement copyright notice does say the … programs
there are for the express purpose and use of the owner of a Compuserve
identification number. That means no copies of any public domain software
can be made legally for distribution without written permission from
Compuserve,he says."
and
"For…members…who may wish to distribute copies of downloaded software,
Baker says there is a procedure. 'It's just like any other copyright. They
would make application in writing to us, and we would review it and respond
in writing with permission or denial'".
That sounds like CIS certainly IS attempting to claim copyright on
everything uploaded to them. Why does this policy seem to differ with what
the sysops here are claiming? Was Baker misrepresented or misquoted? Is
there a lack of agreement within CIS itself as to what the policy really
is? I for one would like an answer…
–apl
Andy,
I haven't read the Novermber issue yet, so can't comment on it, but I can
quote from the Compuserver User Agreement posted here on the system (GO
RULES)…
"Each Customer who places data, materials or other information on the
service *RETAINS ANY RIGHTS THE CUSTOMER MAY HAVE* in such data, materials
or information."
"The entire contents of the Service is copyrighted as a *COLLECTIVE* work
under the United States Copyright laws."
Emphasis added
Don
Then can I suggest that officials of the service be consistent with this
policy in their public statements? –apl
Andy,
I haven't read the Novermber issue yet, so can't comment on it, but I can
quote from the Compuserver User Agreement posted here on the system (GO
RULES)…
"Each Customer who places data, materials or other information on the
service *RETAINS ANY RIGHTS THE CUSTOMER MAY HAVE* in such data, materials
or information."
"The entire contents of the Service is copyrighted as a *COLLECTIVE* work
under the United States Copyright laws."
Emphasis added
Don
That is indeed the MAJOR concern that we all have (including myself). At
this point in time, I can't give you an answer. Was he misquoted? Did he
not say what he meant. DID he say what he meant? I don't know. However,
I'm sure that CompuServe will make a formal policy statement before the
weekend that will (hopefully) tell us EXACTLY what they mean. What I expect
them to say is the policy most of the sysops on CIS have been following all
along — no one has any rights to public domain and thus it can be
redistributed — shareware programs (by the nature of the shareware
concept) have the implicit permission of the author for redistribution
(unless there are stipulations imposed by the author) — copyrighted files
uploaded to CompuServe by the author (or with his permission) may not be
distributed further unless permission by the author is granted. I then
expect CompuServe to further explain their compilation copyright — an
intact collection of files from CIS databases may not be redistributed
(obviously this means something on the order of an entire DL — not a few
files here and there from it). This, to me, is the only sane policy. It
allows the author who does not want further distribution of his work some
sort of protection and reassures the author who does.
Of course, there are many legal grey areas here. The current copyright law
(The 1976 ammendment to it) does not have a provision for an author to
'abandon' his rights. If an author explicitly places his work in the
'public domain' the law does not recognize such a fact — in the eyes of
the copyright law, the author still has all rights to his work. The only
way a program can be put in the public domain is for it have expired from
the time protection.
I agree that the policy YOU are stating IS the only sane one. However, I'll
reserve judgement on that (and on the actual ramifications of Infoworld
etc) until I see an explanation of Baker's alleged remarks. Unfortunately,
they seem to support the implications of Infoworld et al so I am not as
eager as some of the others here to 'forgive and forget'… –apl
I agree that the policy YOU are stating IS the only sane one. However, I'll
reserve judgement on that (and on the actual ramifications of Infoworld
etc) until I see an explanation of Baker's alleged remarks. Unfortunately,
they seem to support the implications of Infoworld et al so I am not as
eager as some of the others here to 'forgive and forget'… –apl
Steve,
What you've said there is very reasonable. I hope you're right and that
CIS *DOES* come out and say something like that.
Jon
Steve,
What you've said there is very reasonable. I hope you're right and that
CIS *DOES* come out and say something like that.
Jon
That is indeed the MAJOR concern that we all have (including myself). At
this point in time, I can't give you an answer. Was he misquoted? Did he
not say what he meant. DID he say what he meant? I don't know. However,
I'm sure that CompuServe will make a formal policy statement before the
weekend that will (hopefully) tell us EXACTLY what they mean. What I expect
them to say is the policy most of the sysops on CIS have been following all
along — no one has any rights to public domain and thus it can be
redistributed — shareware programs (by the nature of the shareware
concept) have the implicit permission of the author for redistribution
(unless there are stipulations imposed by the author) — copyrighted files
uploaded to CompuServe by the author (or with his permission) may not be
distributed further unless permission by the author is granted. I then
expect CompuServe to further explain their compilation copyright — an
intact collection of files from CIS databases may not be redistributed
(obviously this means something on the order of an entire DL — not a few
files here and there from it). This, to me, is the only sane policy. It
allows the author who does not want further distribution of his work some
sort of protection and reassures the author who does.
Of course, there are many legal grey areas here. The current copyright law
(The 1976 ammendment to it) does not have a provision for an author to
'abandon' his rights. If an author explicitly places his work in the
'public domain' the law does not recognize such a fact — in the eyes of
the copyright law, the author still has all rights to his work. The only
way a program can be put in the public domain is for it have expired from
the time protection.
OK, let's forget about the Sande case, and let's also assume that Levitan's
article had factual errors. What about the OTHER article in the November
COMPUTE!, the one titled "CompuServe and the Public Domain"? In reference
to a discussion with Mr. Rich Baker, director of corporate communications
for CIS, the article alleges that
"CompuServe's user agreement copyright notice does say the … programs
there are for the express purpose and use of the owner of a Compuserve
identification number. That means no copies of any public domain software
can be made legally for distribution without written permission from
Compuserve,he says."
and
"For…members…who may wish to distribute copies of downloaded software,
Baker says there is a procedure. 'It's just like any other copyright. They
would make application in writing to us, and we would review it and respond
in writing with permission or denial'".
That sounds like CIS certainly IS attempting to claim copyright on
everything uploaded to them. Why does this policy seem to differ with what
the sysops here are claiming? Was Baker misrepresented or misquoted? Is
there a lack of agreement within CIS itself as to what the policy really
is? I for one would like an answer…
–apl
Jon,
WRONG!!!! Please read the message base. CIS does NOT claim ANY rights to
your software. What they do claim is the compilation copyright…in other
words. They state that any one of the databases is a compilation of
individual works and as such may not be downloaded as a whole and re-posted
on another network. The individual files are controled by the AUTHOR
ONLY! If the author of the individual file either places it in the public
domain or places it in the freely distributable copyrighted material
category, then you MAY download it and distribute it. If the AUTHOR (not
CIS), places the material into limited distribution or exclusive
distribution, then you may NOT download the file and re-post it.
Don
When an author releases a program to the public domain he HAS NO RIGHTS.
They are gone the instant he declares it's public domain. NO one has
rights to the program.
Yes, please read Arlan's fiction in the November COMPUTE. Also be sure to
see the retraction in the December issues Editor's Notes.
Steve,
An obscure part of the Copyright law permits an author to reclaim his or
her rights to an intellectual property previous released as public domain.
There is a time limit, not sure if its 5 or 7 years. Not very practical,
but there nonetheless.
It's 5 years. But the hard part is that you are "supposed" to make a
"reasonable effort" to place the copyright notice in all existing copies.
Not a very realistic goal, especially for a program that is on BBS's. (Now
I'd love to have a lawyer tell me what "reasonable effort" means. Does
that mean just the one place I uploaded it to? Or does it mean every BBS I
know of? Or every BBS that has it? Or what?)
Isn't copyright law fun!
Dan
It's 5 years. But the hard part is that you are "supposed" to make a
"reasonable effort" to place the copyright notice in all existing copies.
Not a very realistic goal, especially for a program that is on BBS's. (Now
I'd love to have a lawyer tell me what "reasonable effort" means. Does
that mean just the one place I uploaded it to? Or does it mean every BBS I
know of? Or every BBS that has it? Or what?)
Isn't copyright law fun!
Dan
Yes — it is 5 years — but there are LOTs of conditions. The author
cannot have explicitly put his work in the public domain. It has to have
gotten out of his control by some set of circumstances outside his control
and he must make every effort to notify those distributing his work that he
has reclaimed his rights. It's very tough to do but the procedure is
outlined in the copyright law.
Yes — it is 5 years — but there are LOTs of conditions. The author
cannot have explicitly put his work in the public domain. It has to have
gotten out of his control by some set of circumstances outside his control
and he must make every effort to notify those distributing his work that he
has reclaimed his rights. It's very tough to do but the procedure is
outlined in the copyright law.
Steve,
An obscure part of the Copyright law permits an author to reclaim his or
her rights to an intellectual property previous released as public domain.
There is a time limit, not sure if its 5 or 7 years. Not very practical,
but there nonetheless.
Steve,
See my response to Don. If CompuServe now says that they are NOT concerned
about individual PUBLIC DOMAIN files and are only concerned with the
'compilation', then my response is WONDERFUL! (thats not what they (and
you) were saying as little as a month or two ago though).
Jon
COMPILATION is EXACTLY what I said 'a month or two' ago. It has been
stated for all to see — type GO RULES.
COMPILATION is EXACTLY what I said 'a month or two' ago. It has been
stated for all to see — type GO RULES.
Steve,
See my response to Don. If CompuServe now says that they are NOT concerned
about individual PUBLIC DOMAIN files and are only concerned with the
'compilation', then my response is WONDERFUL! (thats not what they (and
you) were saying as little as a month or two ago though).
Jon
When an author releases a program to the public domain he HAS NO RIGHTS.
They are gone the instant he declares it's public domain. NO one has
rights to the program.
Yes, please read Arlan's fiction in the November COMPUTE. Also be sure to
see the retraction in the December issues Editor's Notes.
As a result of the discussion here, I understand that CIS is copyrightin
the DL's as a whole, not the individual programs. Certainly, CIS has a
right to prevent someone from downloading entire DL's and then offering
them at a reduced price on a private, commercial bbs. However, I'm still
uncertain of where the line is drawn.
I think everyone is uncertain. CIS needs to make an "official" statement
on this. Maybe if enough people send msgs to feedback asking for one they
will get off their **** and write one. (CIS is now big enough to have
trouble with decisions. (I wish _my_ company was that big. hehe) )
PS. DON'T tell feedback I suggested this! I don't need the headaches!
hehe
I think everyone is uncertain. CIS needs to make an "official" statement
on this. Maybe if enough people send msgs to feedback asking for one they
will get off their **** and write one. (CIS is now big enough to have
trouble with decisions. (I wish _my_ company was that big. hehe) )
PS. DON'T tell feedback I suggested this! I don't need the headaches!
hehe
When a competent spokesman for CIS says to me "Our Rules do not restrict an
individual from downloading an INDIVIDUAL file that the author has released
into the public domain and uploading/distributing it as the individual
pleases" then I will breathe a huge sigh of relief. The article in Compute!
(November) quotes the director of corporate communications (one would think
he is a competent spokesman) as saying the exact opposite though.
Unfortunately, the assurances to the former by the sysops do not carry
weight since they cannot represent CIS as spokesmen in this. I sincerely
would like to see a public posting from CIS discussing individual files.
Jon, you can be sure that CIS will release a statement to all users stating
their policy clearly – as this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Instead
of speculating – let's wait to hear the real thing from the horses' mouth.
Marlene
Jon, you can be sure that CIS will release a statement to all users stating
their policy clearly – as this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Instead
of speculating – let's wait to hear the real thing from the horses' mouth.
Marlene
When a competent spokesman for CIS says to me "Our Rules do not restrict an
individual from downloading an INDIVIDUAL file that the author has released
into the public domain and uploading/distributing it as the individual
pleases" then I will breathe a huge sigh of relief. The article in Compute!
(November) quotes the director of corporate communications (one would think
he is a competent spokesman) as saying the exact opposite though.
Unfortunately, the assurances to the former by the sysops do not carry
weight since they cannot represent CIS as spokesmen in this. I sincerely
would like to see a public posting from CIS discussing individual files.
As a result of the discussion here, I understand that CIS is copyrightin
the DL's as a whole, not the individual programs. Certainly, CIS has a
right to prevent someone from downloading entire DL's and then offering
them at a reduced price on a private, commercial bbs. However, I'm still
uncertain of where the line is drawn.
Jan,
I agree entirely. When an author releases a program to the public domain,
99% of them want that program to be distributed as widely as possible. The
AUTHOR has the right to request restricted distribution, CIS (and other
networks) DON'T. Check out the November issue of Compute! for more on this
topic. A number of people think CIS' policy stinks and is a total
antithesis to the concept of PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Jon
I really object to this policy, and I say that as a bbs operator. Much of
the UNIX software on my board has been developed, tested and debugged by
members of the non-profit orgranization for which I operate the system. Our
intent is to distribute this software as widely as possible (we cater to
academic computer users) and to get it used in colleges and universities.
We _want_ people to download it, use it, and even send it over netnews. It
was public domain stuff before we fiddled with it, and even though our
modifications and documentation may be significant, we really want to
share. I haven't placed any copyright on my board, and I don't intend to.
CIS makes it's money as I sit here typing this message. You work hard, and
so do I – but nobody pays me… jan
How so "increased integrity" when it comes to CIS, out of curiousity? Just
curious. Also, how is it less likely that an "unauthorized upload" can
occur on CIS (i.e., somebody unethically taking somebody else's work
without their knowledge and consent) to a DL, than with Joe Blow's?
If such an occurance happens, it will removed immediately upon bringing it
to our attention (by the legal copyright holder).
If such an occurance happens, it will removed immediately upon bringing it
to our attention (by the legal copyright holder).
John,
I had thought the whole idea behind "freeware" was to stimulate a type of
"bartering" system type distribution of software, and more or less "share
the wealth". When a programmer puts a program onto CompuServe it seems to
me that he in a way is "approving" of what is being done there with his
work. When Joe Blow comes along with only the thought of "making bucks"
off this hard work, it would be nice if he got the author's permission and
also it would be nice if the author could "determine" what was done with
his work. "Free" doesn't always mean "without restriction" you know! The
SysOps are supposed to "screen" for software that might be "stolen" or
"uploaded without permission", as we are just as vulnerable to law suits as
the BBS operators that are "abusing" the system. I think one of the main
issues here is that CompuServe does not just have "freeware" as uploaded,
but "restricted freeware" for CompuServe users only. After all, there does
have to be some reason for people to use CompuServe, and why should Joe
Blow benefit from the compilation efforts of CompuServe staff, he isn't
paying them a cent! Mike
John,
I had thought the whole idea behind "freeware" was to stimulate a type of
"bartering" system type distribution of software, and more or less "share
the wealth". When a programmer puts a program onto CompuServe it seems to
me that he in a way is "approving" of what is being done there with his
work. When Joe Blow comes along with only the thought of "making bucks"
off this hard work, it would be nice if he got the author's permission and
also it would be nice if the author could "determine" what was done with
his work. "Free" doesn't always mean "without restriction" you know! The
SysOps are supposed to "screen" for software that might be "stolen" or
"uploaded without permission", as we are just as vulnerable to law suits as
the BBS operators that are "abusing" the system. I think one of the main
issues here is that CompuServe does not just have "freeware" as uploaded,
but "restricted freeware" for CompuServe users only. After all, there does
have to be some reason for people to use CompuServe, and why should Joe
Blow benefit from the compilation efforts of CompuServe staff, he isn't
paying them a cent! Mike
How so "increased integrity" when it comes to CIS, out of curiousity? Just
curious. Also, how is it less likely that an "unauthorized upload" can
occur on CIS (i.e., somebody unethically taking somebody else's work
without their knowledge and consent) to a DL, than with Joe Blow's?
Frankly Michael, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I am
the manager and contract holder for this forum — I am not paying anyone
'quite a bit' — I'm not paying ANYONE for uploading ANYTHING.
No one is 'getting sued' — please read the article in question before
jumping in with both feet with incorrect facts. Incorrect facts is exactly
what started this controversy.
While I'm sure CIS management is preparing to give an understandable
interpretation of their copyright policy I'll reiterate — PUBLIC DOMAIN
SOFTWARE IS SOFTWARE IN WHICH THE AUTHOR HAS EXPLICITLY GIVEN UP ALL OF
HIS/HER RIGHTS TO IT. FREELY DISTRIBUTABLE COPYRIGHTED SOFTWARE
(SHAREWARE) HAS THE AUTHOR'S EXPRESSED PERMISSION FOR REDISTRIBUTION (BY
THE VERY NATURE OF THE FREEWARE/SHAREWARE CONCEPT). CompuServe claims a
compilation copyright on information on the system — do some research on
compilation copyrights (write to the Library of Congress for copyright
information). CompuServe does not claim ownership of individual files —
they claim copyright on the COMPILATION — the COMPILATION cannot be
reproduced.
If an author uploads his/her copyrighted program here and has expressed
that it's distribution is limited to here, CIS will back the author should
his rights be violated. PLEASE NOTE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC
DOMAIN, SHAREWARE, and COPYRIGHTED SOFTWARE.
Steve,
Your efforts are being "rewarded" for obtaining the software that goes into
this forum. This forum has "marketing" staff taking care of customer
complaints, and there are a whole lot of people at CIS making sure that
this forum runs smoothly and efficiently. You are not the only individual
making this forum work!!!! There is money going into this forum, into the
hardware that it runs on, and into the whole CIS system. This represents a
large investment by CompuServe! I understand that there is "public domain"
that is, "non-copyrighted" software here, and "restricted" forms of
software that are uploaded. I am not in any way critical of how CIS has
been handling this…I hear the marketing people trying to explain every
day the options a programmer has with putting his software into a DL! I
applaud your efforts to "stifle" this "ugly" rumor, however, I think maybe
you should notify CIS that a statement in "ONLINE" might help clafify a
bit! Mike
Mike,
Yes, I am being 'rewarded' for the administration of this forum. But, in no
way is software being paid for to be in the DLs (unless you consider free
uploading as a 'fee' paid to the uploader — I don't). This forum (and I'd
say 99% of the forums on CIS) work because of their membership. Look
through the DLs and see how many files were uploaded by myself and/or my
assistants — it will be less than 5%.
Steve,
True, but if the software, the system, the host, the nodes, the
communications, the marketing, and the maintenance of the system didn't
exist, neither would this forum!!!! The forum itself is people, I agree,
and the software uploaded is also "free" in the sense that CIS doesn't pay
anyone for the data, however, CIS does work hard to make the forums (and
you do also) the type of environment that people "want" to donate their
work to. I agree, the forum itself is the people, you, me, and the
software is a sign of the authors pride in his work, and his desire to
share his efforts with others. However, CIS does make that possible for
him, and both his desires, and the "interests" of CIS are key points in
this "public domain" problem. I just wanted people to think about "why"
CIS might even have "policies" relating to the "competitive" downloading of
data. I have read some of the stuff you mentioned, and realize that
"rumours" are "flying", hence my suggestion that a statement be made in
"ONLINE". Mike
Mike,
Now, that is something I can agree with you 100%! I only took objection to
the statement that seemed (to me) to be saying that people are being
specifically paid to upload material to CIS.
I've been told that a clarification statement by CIS will be made online
before the end of the business day today.
Yep, I saw them all "running around" trying to compile a statement that 1)
wouldn't bore CIS users to death by giving them a legal brief to read, and
2) would sufficiently "put out" the "nasty" rumour mongers fires before
they burnt down the house! Thanks for you quick reply though! Gotta keep
that AMIGA software flowing some where, certainly isn't on the open market!
Mike Mike
Yep, I saw them all "running around" trying to compile a statement that 1)
wouldn't bore CIS users to death by giving them a legal brief to read, and
2) would sufficiently "put out" the "nasty" rumour mongers fires before
they burnt down the house! Thanks for you quick reply though! Gotta keep
that AMIGA software flowing some where, certainly isn't on the open market!
Mike Mike
Mike,
Now, that is something I can agree with you 100%! I only took objection to
the statement that seemed (to me) to be saying that people are being
specifically paid to upload material to CIS.
I've been told that a clarification statement by CIS will be made online
before the end of the business day today.
Steve,
True, but if the software, the system, the host, the nodes, the
communications, the marketing, and the maintenance of the system didn't
exist, neither would this forum!!!! The forum itself is people, I agree,
and the software uploaded is also "free" in the sense that CIS doesn't pay
anyone for the data, however, CIS does work hard to make the forums (and
you do also) the type of environment that people "want" to donate their
work to. I agree, the forum itself is the people, you, me, and the
software is a sign of the authors pride in his work, and his desire to
share his efforts with others. However, CIS does make that possible for
him, and both his desires, and the "interests" of CIS are key points in
this "public domain" problem. I just wanted people to think about "why"
CIS might even have "policies" relating to the "competitive" downloading of
data. I have read some of the stuff you mentioned, and realize that
"rumours" are "flying", hence my suggestion that a statement be made in
"ONLINE". Mike
Mike,
Yes, I am being 'rewarded' for the administration of this forum. But, in no
way is software being paid for to be in the DLs (unless you consider free
uploading as a 'fee' paid to the uploader — I don't). This forum (and I'd
say 99% of the forums on CIS) work because of their membership. Look
through the DLs and see how many files were uploaded by myself and/or my
assistants — it will be less than 5%.
Steve,
Your efforts are being "rewarded" for obtaining the software that goes into
this forum. This forum has "marketing" staff taking care of customer
complaints, and there are a whole lot of people at CIS making sure that
this forum runs smoothly and efficiently. You are not the only individual
making this forum work!!!! There is money going into this forum, into the
hardware that it runs on, and into the whole CIS system. This represents a
large investment by CompuServe! I understand that there is "public domain"
that is, "non-copyrighted" software here, and "restricted" forms of
software that are uploaded. I am not in any way critical of how CIS has
been handling this…I hear the marketing people trying to explain every
day the options a programmer has with putting his software into a DL! I
applaud your efforts to "stifle" this "ugly" rumor, however, I think maybe
you should notify CIS that a statement in "ONLINE" might help clafify a
bit! Mike
Frankly Michael, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I am
the manager and contract holder for this forum — I am not paying anyone
'quite a bit' — I'm not paying ANYONE for uploading ANYTHING.
No one is 'getting sued' — please read the article in question before
jumping in with both feet with incorrect facts. Incorrect facts is exactly
what started this controversy.
While I'm sure CIS management is preparing to give an understandable
interpretation of their copyright policy I'll reiterate — PUBLIC DOMAIN
SOFTWARE IS SOFTWARE IN WHICH THE AUTHOR HAS EXPLICITLY GIVEN UP ALL OF
HIS/HER RIGHTS TO IT. FREELY DISTRIBUTABLE COPYRIGHTED SOFTWARE
(SHAREWARE) HAS THE AUTHOR'S EXPRESSED PERMISSION FOR REDISTRIBUTION (BY
THE VERY NATURE OF THE FREEWARE/SHAREWARE CONCEPT). CompuServe claims a
compilation copyright on information on the system — do some research on
compilation copyrights (write to the Library of Congress for copyright
information). CompuServe does not claim ownership of individual files —
they claim copyright on the COMPILATION — the COMPILATION cannot be
reproduced.
If an author uploads his/her copyrighted program here and has expressed
that it's distribution is limited to here, CIS will back the author should
his rights be violated. PLEASE NOTE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC
DOMAIN, SHAREWARE, and COPYRIGHTED SOFTWARE.
Yes!! I am also trying to follow those guidelines and making sure the
authors{_ are given the opportunity to decide what system thay want their
work on.
Yes!! I am also trying to follow those guidelines and making sure the
authors{_ are given the opportunity to decide what system thay want their
work on.
Guys,
Consider this…CompuServe has people, (whom they pay quite a bit) getting
out there into the Amiga World soliciting "freely distributed" software.
CompuServe spends a bunch of money (believe me I know, I work there) trying
to provide state of the art videotext services.
The people you heard were getting sued probably downloaded those data
library files 1)without the author's permission, 2)with full intent of
adding value to their own bulletin boards, and in fact, competing with CIS
using their own data!!!!! Not only is that unethical from a "author's
permission" standpoint, but it is not smart business.
For those of you who want to believe that CIS exists "out of the goodness
of their little videotex heart, for you to exploit and abuse", well, I
guess you don't realize how much work actually goes into the services
provided here on CIS.
I do, I work hard to make the software, and the data available on CIS the
best it can be. Joe Blow's BBS will cost you less in connect charges, and
may even not charge you for downloads, but Joe's service doesn't provide
you with the quality, the extent, and the integrity, that CIS does. I
guarantee that if you download a file from the DL it was originally put
there by someone, who was intending it to be on CIS, not Joe's service.
Besides…if you can read, and you did before you signed your agreement to
receive your CIS number, you will find out that you are restricted in how
you "distribute" materials you receive from CIS. The SYSOP has explained
why that rule exists, and if you are a programmer, you can appreciate the
logic of the rule.
Aha!! I see your point. {_Thought I read it correctly. Sorry!!! {_/ex
{_{_/ex
Aha!! I see your point. {_Thought I read it correctly. Sorry!!! {_/ex
{_{_/ex
Don:
Where does CIS prohibit the wholesale download of an entire DL for posting
on a competetive service? My agreement with CIS makes no mention of that.
Or, are we contracting on the fly here?
Roger
Roger,
At the main forum prompt, or any ! prompt, type GO RULES and you will see
the user agreement. Also, my original signup package also contained a list
of the rules (I got it about 6 years ago…so it was in force then) states:
"The Customer will not reporduce, sell, publish, or in any manner
commercially exploit any information obtained thru the Service or
participate in or allow such reporduction, sale, publication or
exploitation by any person."
Now I would call that a specific prohibitation against downloading for
COMMERCIAL use the files here, or allowing such use. Since the other
commercial networks certainly use their uploads in a commercial manner (as
does CIS) by downloading a database and re-uploading it to another service
you certainly have violated that portion of the user agreement.
As far as "contracting on the fly", the user agreement also states: "upon
notice published over the Service, CompuServe may modify these terms, the
Operating Rules or the Service….." and since they are in fact posted on
the service, even if there is a change from the original agreement, you
(the Customer) are bound by the rules. This type of notice of change is
not at all unusual. Look at your credit card agreements (gasoline card,
whatever). They all state that continued use of the credit card after
notice of a change in the agreement constitutes acceptance of that
agreement. Don
Don:
Geez, you've kept your MicroNet agreemnt for SIX YEARS? Admirable.
Yes, I read it. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the policy of a
service cannot break the law. Perhaps that policy is valid when it comes
to some of the other news/business/travel services that CIS provides or
provides a gateway for. But, after all, public domain is public domain.
Yes, I'm aware of changing policy agreements, though the validity of some
of these (CIS not in question) are, at best, zilch.
Helluva thread though, eh?
Roger
Don:
Geez, you've kept your MicroNet agreemnt for SIX YEARS? Admirable.
Yes, I read it. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the policy of a
service cannot break the law. Perhaps that policy is valid when it comes
to some of the other news/business/travel services that CIS provides or
provides a gateway for. But, after all, public domain is public domain.
Yes, I'm aware of changing policy agreements, though the validity of some
of these (CIS not in question) are, at best, zilch.
Helluva thread though, eh?
Roger
Roger,
At the main forum prompt, or any ! prompt, type GO RULES and you will see
the user agreement. Also, my original signup package also contained a list
of the rules (I got it about 6 years ago…so it was in force then) states:
"The Customer will not reporduce, sell, publish, or in any manner
commercially exploit any information obtained thru the Service or
participate in or allow such reporduction, sale, publication or
exploitation by any person."
Now I would call that a specific prohibitation against downloading for
COMMERCIAL use the files here, or allowing such use. Since the other
commercial networks certainly use their uploads in a commercial manner (as
does CIS) by downloading a database and re-uploading it to another service
you certainly have violated that portion of the user agreement.
As far as "contracting on the fly", the user agreement also states: "upon
notice published over the Service, CompuServe may modify these terms, the
Operating Rules or the Service….." and since they are in fact posted on
the service, even if there is a change from the original agreement, you
(the Customer) are bound by the rules. This type of notice of change is
not at all unusual. Look at your credit card agreements (gasoline card,
whatever). They all state that continued use of the credit card after
notice of a change in the agreement constitutes acceptance of that
agreement. Don
Don:
Where does CIS prohibit the wholesale download of an entire DL for posting
on a competetive service? My agreement with CIS makes no mention of that.
Or, are we contracting on the fly here?
Roger
Crunch,
CIS policy does NOT prohibit continued distribution of material posted
here. It does prohibit the wholesale downloading of an entire DL and then
posting of that library to another service. Just like Steve's message
said. The collection is copyrighted, NOT the individual works by CIS.
Don
John, my original message that started this thread didn't put it as nicely
as you did! jan
While you may not have stated your message as nicely as John did, he was
also relaying uninformed and incorrect 'facts'.
While you may not have stated your message as nicely as John did, he was
also relaying uninformed and incorrect 'facts'.
I tried!!
I tried!!
John, my original message that started this thread didn't put it as nicely
as you did! jan
The way we handle uploads in the Programmers Network, is that we encourage
distribution of our uploads. If someone wants to put a program on
another system, we politely ask people to contact the authors of the work
and get approval from them. This way, THE ORIGIONAL AUTHOR makes the
decision which system can distribute the program.
It is the policy of the Programmers Network to make sure that those systems
claiming that they OWN a program, is the LAST one to get it. This way, the
program will get a much wider distribution, and it will have already been
posted on all the private BBS's FIRST, then the greedy commercial systems
can HAVE it.
Eventually, the commercial systems like CIS, BIX, and the others will wise
up, and get hip to the fact that PD software is FREE and should be
distributed as widly as possible.
I know that the WELL policy is much more lenient, perhaps thats why they
have such a rich library, also more SOURCE code is available.
I hope that CIS will open up. At least they are improving by having FREE
uploads. So SOMETHING is getting through.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you. When I put something out in athe
public, it's so other people can benefit from what I'm willing to share. I
don't intend to give anybody else rights to it (e.g., CIS). I want to see
it distributed widely and CIS is just one medium for that. If others want
to put it on their boards, it's OK with me. By the way, I probably should
let people know that I have a bbs of my own, but nothing on it has come
from CIS! jan
I think your motives are laudable. Just mention in your descriptions that
the program can be freely distributed. I beleive what Steve said was that
individual programs can be posted on other bbs's (with permission), but not
most of a DL.
I however, would not like people to use my programs thinking that they're
de-bugged (until they are). I put a disclaimer in the docs, but the docs
don't always follow the program ude to limited space on some bbs's, so I'd
rather (for now) have my programs only on CIS, or another bbs that I can
afford to keep in touch with. — Mike
You certainly have that right. I think the world has room for both!
jan
You certainly have that right. I think the world has room for both!
jan
I think your motives are laudable. Just mention in your descriptions that
the program can be freely distributed. I beleive what Steve said was that
individual programs can be posted on other bbs's (with permission), but not
most of a DL.
I however, would not like people to use my programs thinking that they're
de-bugged (until they are). I put a disclaimer in the docs, but the docs
don't always follow the program ude to limited space on some bbs's, so I'd
rather (for now) have my programs only on CIS, or another bbs that I can
afford to keep in touch with. — Mike
Jan,
That is a fair statement. If you want your material distributed and you
implicitly state that your software is either public domain or shareware
with no strings attached then it will be. CIS does not 'own' anything you
upload in the same way that the Gideons do not 'own' the rights to the
bible that they leave in motel/hotel rooms. CIS has a compilation
copyright — they copyright the packaging — the key words, descriptions,
order of the files in the DLs, etc. The compilation copyright is there to
help protect the author who does NOT want (as in Mike Berro's case) his
material distributed elsewhere.
Agreed. I'm over my initial anger, now that the mis-information printed in
InfoWorld has been cleared up.
Agreed. I'm over my initial anger, now that the mis-information printed in
InfoWorld has been cleared up.
Jan,
That is a fair statement. If you want your material distributed and you
implicitly state that your software is either public domain or shareware
with no strings attached then it will be. CIS does not 'own' anything you
upload in the same way that the Gideons do not 'own' the rights to the
bible that they leave in motel/hotel rooms. CIS has a compilation
copyright — they copyright the packaging — the key words, descriptions,
order of the files in the DLs, etc. The compilation copyright is there to
help protect the author who does NOT want (as in Mike Berro's case) his
material distributed elsewhere.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you. When I put something out in athe
public, it's so other people can benefit from what I'm willing to share. I
don't intend to give anybody else rights to it (e.g., CIS). I want to see
it distributed widely and CIS is just one medium for that. If others want
to put it on their boards, it's OK with me. By the way, I probably should
let people know that I have a bbs of my own, but nothing on it has come
from CIS! jan
I believe that CIS does get copyright to what you upload, but not to the
program itself, so that you can't download it and then try to make money on
it (by having it on your BBS), but the author can give you a copy of it for
you to use.
As a programmer with many programs in the DLs, I >DO NOT< want any of my
programs on anybody's BBS without my permission. I realize that that's a
hopeless cause, but many of the programs are works-in-progress that may
have bugs, and if the docs don't follow the program someone may think I am
a flaky programmer (among other things). — Mike
I'm sure that many of you have seen the article in InfoWorld (or will in
the next few days). I am as concerned over these events as you are
although for different reasons.
What was reported in InfoWorld as fact is mostly fantasy and innuendo (and
a remarkable lack of competent reporting by not checking the 'real'
facts).
CompuServe does NOT in any way claim ownership of public domain material
found on CompuServe. The author (or legal copyright holder) of any
material found in any forum database retains his rights. Many authors have
distribution restrictions on programs they upload to CompuServe. They give
exclusive distribution rights to CompuServe and/or a specific forum. What
happened in this case (and not truthfully reported) was that an author who
had given exclusivity to a forum on CompuServe for the distribution of his
programs complained to CompuServe that his material was found on a
subscription BBS system. The BBS operator was contacted by CompuServe and
was asked to remove the copyrighted material. There was quite a discussion
of this event in MAUG(tm) when the incident originally took place. In the
following message what actually took place is detailed — not the invention
InfoWorld chose to publish as fact.
Actually, I stopped reading Infoworld a couple of years ago, when it seemed
that it had fallen into the same category as the Enquirer and the Star.
<==Stan
Actually, I stopped reading Infoworld a couple of years ago, when it seemed
that it had fallen into the same category as the Enquirer and the Star.
<==Stan
I'm sure that many of you have seen the article in InfoWorld (or will in
the next few days). I am as concerned over these events as you are
although for different reasons.
What was reported in InfoWorld as fact is mostly fantasy and innuendo (and
a remarkable lack of competent reporting by not checking the 'real'
facts).
CompuServe does NOT in any way claim ownership of public domain material
found on CompuServe. The author (or legal copyright holder) of any
material found in any forum database retains his rights. Many authors have
distribution restrictions on programs they upload to CompuServe. They give
exclusive distribution rights to CompuServe and/or a specific forum. What
happened in this case (and not truthfully reported) was that an author who
had given exclusivity to a forum on CompuServe for the distribution of his
programs complained to CompuServe that his material was found on a
subscription BBS system. The BBS operator was contacted by CompuServe and
was asked to remove the copyrighted material. There was quite a discussion
of this event in MAUG(tm) when the incident originally took place. In the
following message what actually took place is detailed — not the invention
InfoWorld chose to publish as fact.
===============
The TRUE Story!
===============
If you've read INFOWORLD's coverage of the Steven Sande BBS problem that
was discussed here at length you may be wondering how it could have been
reported in a manner so different from what we all know is the way that
incident took place — I know I am wondering that. For those who do not
already know the true story of those events I have placed a file called
SANDE.BBS in our DL0 area which enumerates all of the events in question.
To read it just go to DL0 and use the command R SANDE.BBS. I regret having
to waste everyone's time by reopening this issue and it is a shame that
INFOWORLD did not contact me or any third-party source to verify Sande's
allegations before printing them.
As always, thank you for your support!
— Neil Shapiro (Chief Sysop, MAUG[tm])
This is a brief synopsis of events which led CIS to send a note to BBS
sysop Steven Sande. The facts are quite different from how they were
reported in INFOWORLD. — Neil Shapiro, Chief Sysop, MAUG(tm)
Many of you may have read the article in INFOWORLD about how CompuServe
lawyers contacted BBS Sysop Steven Sande. Most of INFOWORLD's article was
based on allegations made by Steven Sande and INFOWORLD printed these
allegations as truth. The allegations made are simply not true. The facts
of what happened are as follows:
(continued) …
===============
The TRUE Story!
===============
If you've read INFOWORLD's coverage of the Steven Sande BBS problem that
was discussed here at length you may be wondering how it could have been
reported in a manner so different from what we all know is the way that
incident took place — I know I am wondering that. For those who do not
already know the true story of those events I have placed a file called
SANDE.BBS in our DL0 area which enumerates all of the events in question.
To read it just go to DL0 and use the command R SANDE.BBS. I regret having
to waste everyone's time by reopening this issue and it is a shame that
INFOWORLD did not contact me or any third-party source to verify Sande's
allegations before printing them.
As always, thank you for your support!
— Neil Shapiro (Chief Sysop, MAUG[tm])
This is a brief synopsis of events which led CIS to send a note to BBS
sysop Steven Sande. The facts are quite different from how they were
reported in INFOWORLD. — Neil Shapiro, Chief Sysop, MAUG(tm)
Many of you may have read the article in INFOWORLD about how CompuServe
lawyers contacted BBS Sysop Steven Sande. Most of INFOWORLD's article was
based on allegations made by Steven Sande and INFOWORLD printed these
allegations as truth. The allegations made are simply not true. The facts
of what happened are as follows:
(continued) …
1) CompuServe received a complaint from the author of a copyrighted program
that his program was being published by Sande's Mousetrap BBS without the
author's permission. The author also indicated that Sande had many other
non-Public Domain programs on his BBS. Note: Copyrighted program, not a
public-domain program.
2) CIS asked me to call the BBS and verify the author's complaint. Sande's
short bulletin (signed with his nom de plume of "Captain Mac") specifically
stated that Sande was going onto GEnie, CompuServe and Delphi every week to
download all of their files and that if you sent him $25 to join his
service there was no longer any need to join any of the networks. His
short bulletin did not state he was downloading public-domain files but
said all files and specifically stated commercial redistribution.
3) At the same point in time Sande left a message on MAUG(tm) also stating
that all files (not just public-domain) were being offered on his BBS. I
deleted that message and sent him an EMAIL reply explaining that many of
our files were copyrighted by authors and that it was unethical to take
such files without the authors' permission.
4) CIS' lawyers sent Sande a note which did NOT ask him to close his BBS
but simply asked that he cease the illegal acts above.
5) Sande left many messages on such networks as FidoNET claiming that CIS
had told him to close his BBS and that it was public-domain files that were
at issue. This is simply a misleading statement. CIS did not ask him to
close his board. The files at issue were copyrighted files which CIS had
received author complaints over.
6) It is important to keep in mind that Sande's BBS was a commercial
venture. It is also important to keep in mind that Sande specifically
stated in his short bulletin that he was making network compilations of
data available commercially.
7) CompuServe and MAUG are not attempting to "threaten" any BBS system.
BBS systems are the heart and soul of telecommunications. But the sysop of
a BBS must operate within certain ethical and legal guidelines. One of
these, as should be obvious, is that you do not use a copyrighted file
without the permission of the author.
Boy, that certainly is a different story. I'm terribly disappointed that
InfoWorld published something so much at variance with the truth. The
question is, do I dare upload ??? I'm still unsure of the status of
materials I place on CIS.
Jan,
Just mark the program Public Domain (loss all rights) and freely
distributable. We do not have right to the individual program, only the
Data Library as a whole. As a bonus, the next version of Starterm will be
freely distributable on all networks.
Jim 'Dash' Nangano
Jim,
That wouldn't be a response to the November Compute! article would it? I
can't help but wonder if you'd considered this 'bonus' before hearing
about/seeing the article. I'm sure that everyone who frequents the various
networks identified you with the 'Dash' mentioned in Arlan's column. Maybe
I'm just being skeptical…
Jon
Jon,
You will see my response as soon as I read the article. I have had choice
pieces read to me over the telephone. You will also see a retraction the
the following issue of Compute.
'Dash'
Jim,
Retraction? Let me look at it…
[paraphrase]
'Dash' wrote a program called 'Dashterm'.
'Dash' became a CIS sysop.
'Dash' "modified his terminal program to include a notice that it was
available only via CompuServe and could not be uploaded to other
services"
'Dash's old crowd on Delphi objected.
What is there in that to retract? As far as I can tell it all happened.
The only sentence in the article about 'Dash' that wasn't visible to those
not involved is the sentence "This made perfect sense to Dash since he
would get a 'cut' of the connect-time charges used to acquire his
program." I could well believe that that is not true, but I wouldn't think
it enough for Compute! to be printing a retraction. Now, I support
strongly your right as an author to limit distribution of your program.
Don't get me wrong. I just thought it was tacky to make that CIS-only
restriction after it had already been freely (and widely) distributable in
previous incarnations. Oh well.
Jon
The statement that 'Dash' was made a substantial financial offer to come to
CIS and the statement that shareware authors are offered financial
inducement to upload their material here is false. Even if it were true,
the only source for that info would be myself (as manager and contract
holder for this forum). I was not contacted by Arlan Levitan or anyone
else associated with Compute magazine in the 'research' for this article.
It's a case of slipshod rumor mongering reporting — the type the National
Inquirer and InfoWorld are known for.
The reasons as to why 'Dash' came to AmigaForum as an assistant sysop will
have to be told by him (if he so desires). My reason for asking him is
simple. He's been a good friend for a number of years, is an award winning
entertainment software designer, VP of a successful software company, and
most importantly, an Amiga fanatic.
Steve,
As I said in my note, the financial matters of the article are the only
ones that weren't readily visible to the network-going public. Thats
something between you and Jim. I certainly hadn't heard that you'd offered
him financial inducement to come over. I have no idea whether or not you
'cut' your assistants in for a piece of the pie (such as it is). The
article was the first I'd heard of that, but as I say, everything else in
the article was public knowledge.
Personally, I think Jim should have renamed the program before putting that
'CIS only' notice in it. Maybe called it Novaterm instead of Starterm (or
something like that). The 'Star' in Starterm had become associated with
'Starship Amiga' on Delphi. If I were deb!, I'd have been furious.
Renaming it would have probably been the better course of action.
Jon
While renaming it may have been a good idea to avoid confusion, 'Star' or
'StarShip' is no more associated with Delphi than it is with Grace Slick's
rock group, a Heinlein book, or a multitude of other products or entities.
Steve,
True, 'star' all by itself is not proprietary. 'Starterm' though had
become associated with Delphi (since thats where the two original
programmers got together on it). Making 'Starterm' 3.0 with a note that
basically said CIS-only, screw the other networks was a mistake from my
point of view.
Jon
Steve,
True, 'star' all by itself is not proprietary. 'Starterm' though had
become associated with Delphi (since thats where the two original
programmers got together on it). Making 'Starterm' 3.0 with a note that
basically said CIS-only, screw the other networks was a mistake from my
point of view.
Jon
While renaming it may have been a good idea to avoid confusion, 'Star' or
'StarShip' is no more associated with Delphi than it is with Grace Slick's
rock group, a Heinlein book, or a multitude of other products or entities.
How do you know the "Star" isn't associated with "First Star" (the software
company Jim is a VP of)? Dan
Dan
It could very well be. I'm just expressing how it appeared to a lot of the
network-going public.
Jon
Dan
It could very well be. I'm just expressing how it appeared to a lot of the
network-going public.
Jon
Steve,
As I said in my note, the financial matters of the article are the only
ones that weren't readily visible to the network-going public. Thats
something between you and Jim. I certainly hadn't heard that you'd offered
him financial inducement to come over. I have no idea whether or not you
'cut' your assistants in for a piece of the pie (such as it is). The
article was the first I'd heard of that, but as I say, everything else in
the article was public knowledge.
Personally, I think Jim should have renamed the program before putting that
'CIS only' notice in it. Maybe called it Novaterm instead of Starterm (or
something like that). The 'Star' in Starterm had become associated with
'Starship Amiga' on Delphi. If I were deb!, I'd have been furious.
Renaming it would have probably been the better course of action.
Jon
The statement that 'Dash' was made a substantial financial offer to come to
CIS and the statement that shareware authors are offered financial
inducement to upload their material here is false. Even if it were true,
the only source for that info would be myself (as manager and contract
holder for this forum). I was not contacted by Arlan Levitan or anyone
else associated with Compute magazine in the 'research' for this article.
It's a case of slipshod rumor mongering reporting — the type the National
Inquirer and InfoWorld are known for.
The reasons as to why 'Dash' came to AmigaForum as an assistant sysop will
have to be told by him (if he so desires). My reason for asking him is
simple. He's been a good friend for a number of years, is an award winning
entertainment software designer, VP of a successful software company, and
most importantly, an Amiga fanatic.
Jim,
Retraction? Let me look at it…
[paraphrase]
'Dash' wrote a program called 'Dashterm'.
'Dash' became a CIS sysop.
'Dash' "modified his terminal program to include a notice that it was
available only via CompuServe and could not be uploaded to other
services"
'Dash's old crowd on Delphi objected.
What is there in that to retract? As far as I can tell it all happened.
The only sentence in the article about 'Dash' that wasn't visible to those
not involved is the sentence "This made perfect sense to Dash since he
would get a 'cut' of the connect-time charges used to acquire his
program." I could well believe that that is not true, but I wouldn't think
it enough for Compute! to be printing a retraction. Now, I support
strongly your right as an author to limit distribution of your program.
Don't get me wrong. I just thought it was tacky to make that CIS-only
restriction after it had already been freely (and widely) distributable in
previous incarnations. Oh well.
Jon
Jon,
You will see my response as soon as I read the article. I have had choice
pieces read to me over the telephone. You will also see a retraction the
the following issue of Compute.
'Dash'
Jim,
That wouldn't be a response to the November Compute! article would it? I
can't help but wonder if you'd considered this 'bonus' before hearing
about/seeing the article. I'm sure that everyone who frequents the various
networks identified you with the 'Dash' mentioned in Arlan's column. Maybe
I'm just being skeptical…
Jon
Jan,
Just mark the program Public Domain (loss all rights) and freely
distributable. We do not have right to the individual program, only the
Data Library as a whole. As a bonus, the next version of Starterm will be
freely distributable on all networks.
Jim 'Dash' Nangano
Boy, that certainly is a different story. I'm terribly disappointed that
InfoWorld published something so much at variance with the truth. The
question is, do I dare upload ??? I'm still unsure of the status of
materials I place on CIS.
1) CompuServe received a complaint from the author of a copyrighted program
that his program was being published by Sande's Mousetrap BBS without the
author's permission. The author also indicated that Sande had many other
non-Public Domain programs on his BBS. Note: Copyrighted program, not a
public-domain program.
2) CIS asked me to call the BBS and verify the author's complaint. Sande's
short bulletin (signed with his nom de plume of "Captain Mac") specifically
stated that Sande was going onto GEnie, CompuServe and Delphi every week to
download all of their files and that if you sent him $25 to join his
service there was no longer any need to join any of the networks. His
short bulletin did not state he was downloading public-domain files but
said all files and specifically stated commercial redistribution.
3) At the same point in time Sande left a message on MAUG(tm) also stating
that all files (not just public-domain) were being offered on his BBS. I
deleted that message and sent him an EMAIL reply explaining that many of
our files were copyrighted by authors and that it was unethical to take
such files without the authors' permission.
4) CIS' lawyers sent Sande a note which did NOT ask him to close his BBS
but simply asked that he cease the illegal acts above.
5) Sande left many messages on such networks as FidoNET claiming that CIS
had told him to close his BBS and that it was public-domain files that were
at issue. This is simply a misleading statement. CIS did not ask him to
close his board. The files at issue were copyrighted files which CIS had
received author complaints over.
6) It is important to keep in mind that Sande's BBS was a commercial
venture. It is also important to keep in mind that Sande specifically
stated in his short bulletin that he was making network compilations of
data available commercially.
7) CompuServe and MAUG are not attempting to "threaten" any BBS system.
BBS systems are the heart and soul of telecommunications. But the sysop of
a BBS must operate within certain ethical and legal guidelines. One of
these, as should be obvious, is that you do not use a copyrighted file
without the permission of the author.
Jan,
Cutting thru all the gobble-de-gook and MISInfoWorld article, the plain
fact of the matter is that by uploading a file to Compuserve you give up NO
rights whatsoever. As the author, you may distribute the program to to
whom ever you wish and you may allow others to do so….or you may deny the
same.
Don
All,
Absolutely, if you don't want to see your "hard work" pushed on Joe Blow's
bulletin board, along with a pirated copy of "DPAINT", or whatever, then
you simply say so in the presentation of your work. I know that I don't
want Joe Blow to profit from my hard work…that is NOT what public domain
software is all about!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want anyone to be able to have
the software, that's fine too!!!!!! But the choice rests on you! Not on
whether or not Joe Blow has the time to "steal" your hard work to make
money on! Mike
All,
Absolutely, if you don't want to see your "hard work" pushed on Joe Blow's
bulletin board, along with a pirated copy of "DPAINT", or whatever, then
you simply say so in the presentation of your work. I know that I don't
want Joe Blow to profit from my hard work…that is NOT what public domain
software is all about!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want anyone to be able to have
the software, that's fine too!!!!!! But the choice rests on you! Not on
whether or not Joe Blow has the time to "steal" your hard work to make
money on! Mike
That's the way it should be. Now, why in the world did that rag publish
such garbage? I used to think that it was a good source for current
industry poop, but I'm beginning to wonder…
By the way, it seems as if conversations in this forum can really have an
effect on commercial enterprises. Not so long ago, a mailorder firm named
Northeastern Software was getting a lot of bad reports here and on Macus.
Guess what – they've gone under. Cause and effect? I don't know. But
it's food for thought…
jan
Jan, I think the reason that Info world published such a story is that is
makes a good headline. You know the type "Big bad corporation against the
inocent little guy". It doen's matter that the little guy was wrong! I was
involved with such media hype few years ago. Then a 12 year old kid manage
to log into our developement system (via telenet) and we let him play
adventure. Few days later he appeared on local news with extravagant
claims, that he could modify our data bases and perform any kind of
operation. Of course, he COULD NOT. But who are going to believe, a big
corporation or a 12 year old kid? Besides, 12 year olds lie all the time so
that doesn't make a good story…..oh,well…..Richie
Jan, I think the reason that Info world published such a story is that is
makes a good headline. You know the type "Big bad corporation against the
inocent little guy". It doen's matter that the little guy was wrong! I was
involved with such media hype few years ago. Then a 12 year old kid manage
to log into our developement system (via telenet) and we let him play
adventure. Few days later he appeared on local news with extravagant
claims, that he could modify our data bases and perform any kind of
operation. Of course, he COULD NOT. But who are going to believe, a big
corporation or a 12 year old kid? Besides, 12 year olds lie all the time so
that doesn't make a good story…..oh,well…..Richie
Boy, do I know about how the media distorts facts and issues.
Jim 'Dash' Nangano
Boy, do I know about how the media distorts facts and issues.
Jim 'Dash' Nangano
InfoWorlds quality has been going down for a long time. But more
importantly they (like a lot of other computer mags) are very careless when
it comes to checking out stories. They often make minimal or no effort to
contact the involved parties. (A good example, they get a bad copy of the
disk for a review of a program. They then give the program a bad review
since they couldn't boot it. A "normal" person would have gotten a new
disk. (Bad disks just happen sometimes, you don't blame the software
company for it.) (I know about this cause it happened in a review of one of
my programs. Since the disk was bad the mag didn't review the current
version of the program but instead tested a much older one (which had some
bugs and a lot fewer features).)
Maybe if users started complaining to mags like they do to publishers
something would get done about this. (Look at your average newspaper.
They are pretty careful about what they publish and if they make a mistake
it is in the next days paper.)
Dan
You've made a very valid point about InfoWorld quality. Since John Dvorak
left it's been a straight slide down hill. Their "new look" is really ugly
(it's more like ComputerWorld, which is informative, but a chore to read).
It sounds like they've gotten lazy when it comes to reviews. It's pure
laziness, not to pursue a good copy of a program that's been sent for
review. jan
I think they started down hill long before Dvorak left. (I'm tempted to
start taking the SF paper (don't remember which) just to get his column.)
Did you see InfoWorlds first review of the AT&T 6300+? They criticized it
for not being an AT clone. Why was it compared to the AT? Because they
both use the 80286. That is somewhat like critizing the Apple ][ for not
being a C64 since both use the 6502. (Not quite that bad but the concept
is similar.) And they have an "unofficial" policy (ie the editors deny it
and the writers say it is true) of ONLY writing about the IBM and clones.
They want to become a great IBM mag and I think they will fail. And they
were once the single best computer mag by a very large margin.
I think they started down hill long before Dvorak left. (I'm tempted to
start taking the SF paper (don't remember which) just to get his column.)
Did you see InfoWorlds first review of the AT&T 6300+? They criticized it
for not being an AT clone. Why was it compared to the AT? Because they
both use the 80286. That is somewhat like critizing the Apple ][ for not
being a C64 since both use the 6502. (Not quite that bad but the concept
is similar.) And they have an "unofficial" policy (ie the editors deny it
and the writers say it is true) of ONLY writing about the IBM and clones.
They want to become a great IBM mag and I think they will fail. And they
were once the single best computer mag by a very large margin.
You've made a very valid point about InfoWorld quality. Since John Dvorak
left it's been a straight slide down hill. Their "new look" is really ugly
(it's more like ComputerWorld, which is informative, but a chore to read).
It sounds like they've gotten lazy when it comes to reviews. It's pure
laziness, not to pursue a good copy of a program that's been sent for
review. jan
InfoWorlds quality has been going down for a long time. But more
importantly they (like a lot of other computer mags) are very careless when
it comes to checking out stories. They often make minimal or no effort to
contact the involved parties. (A good example, they get a bad copy of the
disk for a review of a program. They then give the program a bad review
since they couldn't boot it. A "normal" person would have gotten a new
disk. (Bad disks just happen sometimes, you don't blame the software
company for it.) (I know about this cause it happened in a review of one of
my programs. Since the disk was bad the mag didn't review the current
version of the program but instead tested a much older one (which had some
bugs and a lot fewer features).)
Maybe if users started complaining to mags like they do to publishers
something would get done about this. (Look at your average newspaper.
They are pretty careful about what they publish and if they make a mistake
it is in the next days paper.)
Dan
Jan,
InfoWorld is just like any other newspaper. They need readers to make
money. They don't think they have time to verify every story, so they run
with it if they think it is "reasonable". Look at what happened to every
US network and newspaper during the Chernoble incident. 1 guy claims to
have heard that 2000+ people died in the immediate explosion of the
reactor. The papers and networks fell all over themselves reporting it as
"an informed source tells us" and basically saying it was fact. In fact,
they all had to retract the story and it was fiction.
People have short memories for things that are printed in the media and
prove to be wrong, unless it happens every day…and as such, the media get
away with printing pretty much what they want, without verifying because
they don't want someone else to beat them to the story.
InfoWorld has justly earned the nickname Mis-InfoWorld, I don't trust
anything I see in it until it is verified.
Don
I think the InfoWorld staff is _lazy_. So much of what they cover can be
verified with a phone call (now that I've said this, I'll probably get
attacked by raging InfoWorld staffers….) jan
I don't think so, I doubt that the InfoWorld staff bothers to come on here
and get the "real facts". Don
I don't think so, I doubt that the InfoWorld staff bothers to come on here
and get the "real facts". Don
I think the InfoWorld staff is _lazy_. So much of what they cover can be
verified with a phone call (now that I've said this, I'll probably get
attacked by raging InfoWorld staffers….) jan
Jan, what's really ironic is that in the same issue that InfoWorld printed
the CIS vs BBS story, they also had an editorial telling about their
superior accuracy and fact checking compared to all computer mags. I miss
Dvorack, I don't think he was right to often, but he was fun to read.
George
Dvorak was correct about half the time. (Some of his more famous "misses"
were true but then got canceled before the product was released.) But one
thing about Dvorak being right or wrong, he was writing a rumor column. You
don't expect 100% accuracy in rumors. (They are a lot different from front
page headline stories which are presented as fact.) Dan
Dvorak was correct about half the time. (Some of his more famous "misses"
were true but then got canceled before the product was released.) But one
thing about Dvorak being right or wrong, he was writing a rumor column. You
don't expect 100% accuracy in rumors. (They are a lot different from front
page headline stories which are presented as fact.) Dan
Jan, what's really ironic is that in the same issue that InfoWorld printed
the CIS vs BBS story, they also had an editorial telling about their
superior accuracy and fact checking compared to all computer mags. I miss
Dvorack, I don't think he was right to often, but he was fun to read.
George
Jan,
InfoWorld is just like any other newspaper. They need readers to make
money. They don't think they have time to verify every story, so they run
with it if they think it is "reasonable". Look at what happened to every
US network and newspaper during the Chernoble incident. 1 guy claims to
have heard that 2000+ people died in the immediate explosion of the
reactor. The papers and networks fell all over themselves reporting it as
"an informed source tells us" and basically saying it was fact. In fact,
they all had to retract the story and it was fiction.
People have short memories for things that are printed in the media and
prove to be wrong, unless it happens every day…and as such, the media get
away with printing pretty much what they want, without verifying because
they don't want someone else to beat them to the story.
InfoWorld has justly earned the nickname Mis-InfoWorld, I don't trust
anything I see in it until it is verified.
Don
That's the way it should be. Now, why in the world did that rag publish
such garbage? I used to think that it was a good source for current
industry poop, but I'm beginning to wonder…
By the way, it seems as if conversations in this forum can really have an
effect on commercial enterprises. Not so long ago, a mailorder firm named
Northeastern Software was getting a lot of bad reports here and on Macus.
Guess what – they've gone under. Cause and effect? I don't know. But
it's food for thought…
jan
Well Don,
It looks like I owe CIS an apology. Being as I've already left them a
little note in FeedBack about this matter, based on incomplete information,
looks like I'll have to leave another note and 'eat crow'. So much for
mis-InforWorld for this (previous) reader!
Jim
Well Don,
It looks like I owe CIS an apology. Being as I've already left them a
little note in FeedBack about this matter, based on incomplete information,
looks like I'll have to leave another note and 'eat crow'. So much for
mis-InforWorld for this (previous) reader!
Jim
Jan,
Cutting thru all the gobble-de-gook and MISInfoWorld article, the plain
fact of the matter is that by uploading a file to Compuserve you give up NO
rights whatsoever. As the author, you may distribute the program to to
whom ever you wish and you may allow others to do so….or you may deny the
same.
Don