CompuServe Thread

Forum unknown · Help/Announcements

To PD, or not PD?

19 messages in this thread
#26302From: John FoustJul 11, 1986 11:10 AM
Alas, I just spent 20 minutes composing a reply to your message, having first forwarded it ahead to the "front" of the board; immediately after storing it, we experienced a system crash at our Dublin computer center, and both our messages were lost. Since I think your message deserves a public hearing, I'm reposting it again below; my response will follow. 10-Jul-86 18:05:39 Has everyone here to read the Rules of Operation at the 'GO RULES'? I don't think most members of the Amiga Forum are aware of the implications of the Compuserve user agreement. A few days ago, I spoke with Jim Rulfs, a Compuserve representative, and he clarified this for me. Compuserve was worried about the origin of software on the AMICUS disks. The software in the data libraries is not to be distributed to your friends and local user group. It is the property of Compuserve. You have paid a fee to get this software and information, and it is a violation of your user agreement to give it to anyone else. Compuserve has the right to terminate your account if you violate the membership agreement. It may be public domain, but since you got it from here, you may not distribute it to others. If you see people re-distributing software from Compuserve, or circulating copies of the message base here, or posting either to another network or BBS, please inform them that they are openly violating their membership agreement, and alert a representative of Compuserve. [My response is attached as a reply. – DWP]
#26307From: Denis HennessyJul 11, 1986 1:22 PM
That's ridiculous. If I write a program which I wish to place in the public domain, and if (having paid a subscription to Compuserve) I make it available to other users of Compuserve, it remains in the public domain. It does not become the property of Compuserve, it does not become the property of the user who downloaded it. It is still public domain and may be distributed as such. If Compuserve tried to enforce any other policy, I'm sure they'd see a marked decrease in the amount of uploads they receive. People upload software to Compuserve (and other bbs's) so that it can be FREELY distributed to the maximum number of other computer users. Compuserve already got paid for the upload and the download!!. By the way, I'm in Dublin too and have an Amiga. Maybe we should get together and exchange (PUBLIC DOMAIN) software. I'm just off on three weeks holidays. Catch any messages after that. As the Unix guys say: "Live Free or Die"
#26310From: Dave PaulJul 11, 1986 3:03 PM
You were responding to John's interpretation of the policy, not our statement of it. Tho' not intentional, I think you'll find by reading my reply to John that his interpretation was somewhat flawed. Please do read my reply, which is attached to John's message. Re: getting together, by all means! There's a very active Amiga User Group which meets regularly each month, coincidentally in a room here at CompuServe's Upper Arlington facility, here in the Columbus area. If you're interested, drop me a note with a phone number and/or address via EasyPlex and I'll see that you get a copy of the newsletter and a notice of when the next meeting will take place.
#26310From: Dave PaulJul 11, 1986 3:03 PM
You were responding to John's interpretation of the policy, not our statement of it. Tho' not intentional, I think you'll find by reading my reply to John that his interpretation was somewhat flawed. Please do read my reply, which is attached to John's message. Re: getting together, by all means! There's a very active Amiga User Group which meets regularly each month, coincidentally in a room here at CompuServe's Upper Arlington facility, here in the Columbus area. If you're interested, drop me a note with a phone number and/or address via EasyPlex and I'll see that you get a copy of the newsletter and a notice of when the next meeting will take place.
#26307From: Denis HennessyJul 11, 1986 1:22 PM
That's ridiculous. If I write a program which I wish to place in the public domain, and if (having paid a subscription to Compuserve) I make it available to other users of Compuserve, it remains in the public domain. It does not become the property of Compuserve, it does not become the property of the user who downloaded it. It is still public domain and may be distributed as such. If Compuserve tried to enforce any other policy, I'm sure they'd see a marked decrease in the amount of uploads they receive. People upload software to Compuserve (and other bbs's) so that it can be FREELY distributed to the maximum number of other computer users. Compuserve already got paid for the upload and the download!!. By the way, I'm in Dublin too and have an Amiga. Maybe we should get together and exchange (PUBLIC DOMAIN) software. I'm just off on three weeks holidays. Catch any messages after that. As the Unix guys say: "Live Free or Die"
#26308From: Dave PaulJul 11, 1986 2:54 PM
John, You're basically correct; however, permit me to address a few of your comments, and correct several possible misimpressions that could be drawn from them: o CompuServe is concerned about re-distribution of software and other files originating in our Data Libraries, especially for profit or to mass audiences of one type or another. We do not and will not get hysterical about an individual user who happens to give a single copy of his favorite program to a friend or associate, on the presumption that this loosely falls within the realm of "personal use". However, our policy does prohibit the re-distribution of software obtained here on CompuServe by media directed to an audience at large, such as a BBS, a user group disk, or another telecomputing service. I think the difference between these two modes of distribution – a single copy provided to an individual, and a copy placed on a medium for public or mass consumption – is less than subtle. o The statement that "software in the data libraries … is the property of CompuServe" is easily misinterpreted. CompuServe's copyright policy does nothing to supersede the rights of the author of the software or file; we do not in effect "take possession" of the file on upload. The author is still free to distribute the file through other media of his choice, to specify his own limits on further distribution, or to withdraw it from distribution upon request to the appropriate Forum Manager. If a file, which happens to be found in our Data Libraries, is obtained from another source or from the author, that is beyond the scope of CompuServe's policy. The policy does, however, specify that a file may not be downloaded from a Data Library here on CompuServe and then placed into another medium intended for re-distribution to a larger audience than the individual user who downloaded it. When you mention the "fee" paid, in the form of connect charges, by a user who downloads a given file, it is in effect a fee for personal use only; you are not purchasing rights of re-distribution, either from CompuServe or from the original author of the file. o Yes, "CompuServe has the right to terminate your account if you violate the membership agreement". I don't, however, recall this being mentioned in your conversation with Jim, and it is not a right which is exercised casually. In general, our procedure is to contact the user, ensure that our copyright policy and the membership agreement are understood, attempt to obtain compliance both in the present case and in the future, and go from there. This was the nature of your discussion with Jim. If there is a continuing problem involving a given user after these efforts have been made, then yes, termination of the user's account is one of the options available to CompuServe in order to resolve the situation. o While we appreciate your thought in suggesting that users "alert a CompuServe representative" should they suspect misappropriation of files originating here, we're frankly not interested in setting up a police force to handle this sort of affair. Make no mistake about it, when clear cases of violation of our policies are detected, we'll take steps to correct the situation; but we aren't inviting the creation of a "Big Brother task force", nor encouraging that members be "deputized" to keep a lookout for these activities. Your suggestion that, in such cases, the individual submitting the file for redistribution be advised of its nature, and that such files be refused when they obviously originated here, should be sufficient to protect both the user's interest and our own. I don't want to use up a lot of daylight discussing this issue, as I think the meaning and intent of the policy can be understood clearly simply by reading it as posted on the service, and there are plenty of other issues to be discussed here that are more appropriate to the environment. However, if there are specific questions about the policy, you're free to contact me via EasyPlex electronic mail to 70006,2026. Best, -<Dave>- Dave Paul/CIS Product Marketing
#26328From: Richard WebbJul 11, 1986 8:22 PM
Ahhh, I understand! On the roadmap of telecommunications, rather than an interstate highway, CIS is more like a dead end street. 🙂
#26349From: Marlene ZenkerJul 11, 1986 10:03 PM
There is such a wealth of information available in CIS that I think that is an unfair statement. They shouldn't be obligated to pass along everything available in the DL's freely to other services or local BBS's etc. After all they are in business to make money and they do provide a great service. Marlene
#26395From: Richard WebbJul 12, 1986 10:25 AM
Not at all. While "raids" of the DLs by a competing service may be naughty, it seems a bit high handed to disallow an individual the authority to send some useful or imaginative software onwards to another network. A good program will show up on ( )Link, ( )IX, whatever — it just takes longer. I give a copy on disk to a friend, from there he passes it on, and a third party innocently uploads his new find to ( )elphi. Are we each accessories to the crime of posting a CI$ program onto another network? As all this was airing out, I had picked up a copy of the graphics version of Hack from ( )Link. I decided not to upload it here, though; costs to much to upload that large a file, and I wouldn't want to put CI$'s barriers in the way of further PD distribution. 'Nuff sai. The grousing we may do in the forum isn't likely to change network policy, and it takes up valuable message space.
#26395From: Richard WebbJul 12, 1986 10:25 AM
Not at all. While "raids" of the DLs by a competing service may be naughty, it seems a bit high handed to disallow an individual the authority to send some useful or imaginative software onwards to another network. A good program will show up on ( )Link, ( )IX, whatever — it just takes longer. I give a copy on disk to a friend, from there he passes it on, and a third party innocently uploads his new find to ( )elphi. Are we each accessories to the crime of posting a CI$ program onto another network? As all this was airing out, I had picked up a copy of the graphics version of Hack from ( )Link. I decided not to upload it here, though; costs to much to upload that large a file, and I wouldn't want to put CI$'s barriers in the way of further PD distribution. 'Nuff sai. The grousing we may do in the forum isn't likely to change network policy, and it takes up valuable message space.
#26349From: Marlene ZenkerJul 11, 1986 10:03 PM
There is such a wealth of information available in CIS that I think that is an unfair statement. They shouldn't be obligated to pass along everything available in the DL's freely to other services or local BBS's etc. After all they are in business to make money and they do provide a great service. Marlene
#26328From: Richard WebbJul 11, 1986 8:22 PM
Ahhh, I understand! On the roadmap of telecommunications, rather than an interstate highway, CIS is more like a dead end street. 🙂
#26346From: Rick SchaefferJul 11, 1986 9:28 PM
What about ARC011? It states clearly that it is "freely redistributable" software! Should it not be withdrawn? Sorry to go on-and-on about this but it's IMPORTANT! You MUST either change the policy or NOT accept "freeware" and "public domain" programs on these SIGS…it CAN'T be halfway. Public Domain means JUST what it says. Rick Schaeffer
#26410From: John FoustJul 12, 1986 1:51 PM
Rick – This is not a public domain network, it is some thing you buy, and therefore, someone has rights to what is being sold, and rights are being transferred. Therefore, Compuserve can secure an ongoing 'collection copyright' over all the information here, and charge for it, and control its distribution. Otherwise, someone could repost the message base or DLs to another network, and Compuserve would have no control of their product, which is a simple case of property law, extended to the information age. So, although this stuff may be PD, it isn't while it's here. I think there is strength to the "parts is parts" argument, but not here. Of course, some networks and BBSes regard PD as PD, and there is little question raised. You are free to go to those networks, of course.
#26410From: John FoustJul 12, 1986 1:51 PM
Rick – This is not a public domain network, it is some thing you buy, and therefore, someone has rights to what is being sold, and rights are being transferred. Therefore, Compuserve can secure an ongoing 'collection copyright' over all the information here, and charge for it, and control its distribution. Otherwise, someone could repost the message base or DLs to another network, and Compuserve would have no control of their product, which is a simple case of property law, extended to the information age. So, although this stuff may be PD, it isn't while it's here. I think there is strength to the "parts is parts" argument, but not here. Of course, some networks and BBSes regard PD as PD, and there is little question raised. You are free to go to those networks, of course.
#26346From: Rick SchaefferJul 11, 1986 9:28 PM
What about ARC011? It states clearly that it is "freely redistributable" software! Should it not be withdrawn? Sorry to go on-and-on about this but it's IMPORTANT! You MUST either change the policy or NOT accept "freeware" and "public domain" programs on these SIGS…it CAN'T be halfway. Public Domain means JUST what it says. Rick Schaeffer
#26409From: John FoustJul 12, 1986 1:51 PM
I think the 'GO RULES' are quite clear, and I support them, since this is a contract I have signed. Every CIS member has agreed to this contract, and I don't think it's a big deal to talk about it here, in section 0. I don't think I've mis-interpreted the 'GO RULES', or my conversation with Jim Rulfs. I explicitly asked about the case where a person might give a copy of a CIS-downloaded program to a friend. He said "No." I suggest one of us call him to clarify. "Personal use" doesn't mean that you can give a copy to a friend. The same thing applies to commercial software, of course. Obviously, once this happens, the original contract holder is not in control of that software, and it could easily fall into the hands of a user group – an action against the spirit of the 'GO RULES', and CIS policy. In other words, could I give a transcript of the CIS message base to a friend, under this interpretation of "personal use"? I think not. Under your interpretation, is there any difference between the message base, and the files in the DLs? Also, Rulfs recommended the action I stated in my message; that any spotted violations of these rules should be reported to a CIS representative. If I spotted StarTerm 3.01 on another network, shouldn't I report it? Unless I've just been appointed "deputy", :-), I can't see why this shouldn't apply to any Forum member.
#26409From: John FoustJul 12, 1986 1:51 PM
I think the 'GO RULES' are quite clear, and I support them, since this is a contract I have signed. Every CIS member has agreed to this contract, and I don't think it's a big deal to talk about it here, in section 0. I don't think I've mis-interpreted the 'GO RULES', or my conversation with Jim Rulfs. I explicitly asked about the case where a person might give a copy of a CIS-downloaded program to a friend. He said "No." I suggest one of us call him to clarify. "Personal use" doesn't mean that you can give a copy to a friend. The same thing applies to commercial software, of course. Obviously, once this happens, the original contract holder is not in control of that software, and it could easily fall into the hands of a user group – an action against the spirit of the 'GO RULES', and CIS policy. In other words, could I give a transcript of the CIS message base to a friend, under this interpretation of "personal use"? I think not. Under your interpretation, is there any difference between the message base, and the files in the DLs? Also, Rulfs recommended the action I stated in my message; that any spotted violations of these rules should be reported to a CIS representative. If I spotted StarTerm 3.01 on another network, shouldn't I report it? Unless I've just been appointed "deputy", :-), I can't see why this shouldn't apply to any Forum member.
#26308From: Dave PaulJul 11, 1986 2:54 PM
John, You're basically correct; however, permit me to address a few of your comments, and correct several possible misimpressions that could be drawn from them: o CompuServe is concerned about re-distribution of software and other files originating in our Data Libraries, especially for profit or to mass audiences of one type or another. We do not and will not get hysterical about an individual user who happens to give a single copy of his favorite program to a friend or associate, on the presumption that this loosely falls within the realm of "personal use". However, our policy does prohibit the re-distribution of software obtained here on CompuServe by media directed to an audience at large, such as a BBS, a user group disk, or another telecomputing service. I think the difference between these two modes of distribution – a single copy provided to an individual, and a copy placed on a medium for public or mass consumption – is less than subtle. o The statement that "software in the data libraries … is the property of CompuServe" is easily misinterpreted. CompuServe's copyright policy does nothing to supersede the rights of the author of the software or file; we do not in effect "take possession" of the file on upload. The author is still free to distribute the file through other media of his choice, to specify his own limits on further distribution, or to withdraw it from distribution upon request to the appropriate Forum Manager. If a file, which happens to be found in our Data Libraries, is obtained from another source or from the author, that is beyond the scope of CompuServe's policy. The policy does, however, specify that a file may not be downloaded from a Data Library here on CompuServe and then placed into another medium intended for re-distribution to a larger audience than the individual user who downloaded it. When you mention the "fee" paid, in the form of connect charges, by a user who downloads a given file, it is in effect a fee for personal use only; you are not purchasing rights of re-distribution, either from CompuServe or from the original author of the file. o Yes, "CompuServe has the right to terminate your account if you violate the membership agreement". I don't, however, recall this being mentioned in your conversation with Jim, and it is not a right which is exercised casually. In general, our procedure is to contact the user, ensure that our copyright policy and the membership agreement are understood, attempt to obtain compliance both in the present case and in the future, and go from there. This was the nature of your discussion with Jim. If there is a continuing problem involving a given user after these efforts have been made, then yes, termination of the user's account is one of the options available to CompuServe in order to resolve the situation. o While we appreciate your thought in suggesting that users "alert a CompuServe representative" should they suspect misappropriation of files originating here, we're frankly not interested in setting up a police force to handle this sort of affair. Make no mistake about it, when clear cases of violation of our policies are detected, we'll take steps to correct the situation; but we aren't inviting the creation of a "Big Brother task force", nor encouraging that members be "deputized" to keep a lookout for these activities. Your suggestion that, in such cases, the individual submitting the file for redistribution be advised of its nature, and that such files be refused when they obviously originated here, should be sufficient to protect both the user's interest and our own. I don't want to use up a lot of daylight discussing this issue, as I think the meaning and intent of the policy can be understood clearly simply by reading it as posted on the service, and there are plenty of other issues to be discussed here that are more appropriate to the environment. However, if there are specific questions about the policy, you're free to contact me via EasyPlex electronic mail to 70006,2026. Best, -<Dave>- Dave Paul/CIS Product Marketing