joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (10/09/86)
According to October 6, 1986 InfoWorld:
Compuserve Information Service has threatened a bulletin
board operator with legal action for offering on his board
public domain programs he obtained on-line from Compuserve.
Compuserve, a common source for public domain programs,
said it considered the entire contents of its service to be
copyrighted, a pokciy that caused user outcry when it was
first adopted last year....
[The BBS operator] received a registered letter from
Compuserve's attorneys stating that he was infringing on
Compuserve's copyright. The letter threatened him with
civil and criminal action...
This is a good example of why I subscribe to USENET and not to
Compuserve.
Now if I just don't get a letter from InfoWorld. :-)
--
Joel West MCI Mail: 282-8879
Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA 92083
{cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPAdubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/09/86)
> According to October 6, 1986 InfoWorld: > Compuserve Information Service has threatened a bulletin > board operator with legal action for offering on his board > public domain programs he obtained on-line from Compuserve. > Compuserve, a common source for public domain programs, > said it considered the entire contents of its service to be > copyrighted, a pokciy that caused user outcry when it was > first adopted last year.... > [The BBS operator] received a registered letter from > Compuserve's attorneys stating that he was infringing on > Compuserve's copyright. The letter threatened him with > civil and criminal action... What is CompuServe's policy when the stuff posted on CompuServe was posted by people who obtained the stuff from another net? E.g., if someone took Grep-Wc from Usenet/Delphi and put in on CompuServe, I wouldn't be real thrilled about CompuServe asserting hegemony over MY software. Maybe I should copyright it, and then sue 'em! :-) -- Paul DuBois UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | ARPA: dubois@easter --+-- dubois@rhesus (no kidding) | | "If it works, I didn't write it." "That's for sure!"
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach; Lord of the OtherRealms) (10/10/86)
> According to October 6, 1986 InfoWorld: > Compuserve Information Service has threatened a bulletin > board operator with legal action for offering on his board > public domain programs he obtained on-line from Compuserve. > Compuserve, a common source for public domain programs, > said it considered the entire contents of its service to be > copyrighted, a pokciy that caused user outcry when it was > first adopted last year.... > [The BBS operator] received a registered letter from > Compuserve's attorneys stating that he was infringing on > Compuserve's copyright. The letter threatened him with > civil and criminal action... > > This is a good example of why I subscribe to USENET and not to > Compuserve. Joel did the same thing InfoWorld did -- neglect to check the facts before flaming. According to CompuServe, the BBS operator was not sent the letter over public domain or shareware material, but over files that were copyrighted either by an author or by CompuServe that this BBS operator was downloading and redistributing without permission. On top of this, the operator was making this material available on his BBS for a fee of $25 (i.e. he was out to profit on compuServe material) and he was advertising this BBS on CompuServe and telling people that this was an alternative to paying CompuServe for the material they were supplying. The letter was sent after a number of authors who put copyrighted material on compuServe complained to them about the infringement. InforWorld blew it. They never bothered to call Neil Shapiro (SYSOP of MAUG on CompuServe) or CompuServe to check facts, they just published what the BBS operator said. The BBS operator was breaking the law, and was generally acting like a (well, never mind) trying to make a quick buck off of other people's work. Before you flame, check your facts. chuq
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (10/10/86)
The only thing that Compuserve could semi-reasonably claim copyright over is
the particular collection of software in the MAUG libraries. Think about it
for a minute. Everything in those libraries is either public domain -- thus
nobody has the right to prevent people from duplicating it -- or copyrighted
by some person or company other than Compuserve -- in which case, Compuserve
has no right to forbid duplication since they don't hold the copyright. Now
the real copyright owners can limit distribution, but generally if something
copyrighted is in the Compuserve/GENIE/Delphi libraries, it's because Compu-
Serve & competitors provide convenient "public" distribution channels, *NOT*
because the copyright holder wants to limit the distribution. In the case of
the Mac, only one exception comes to mind: the System & Software Supplement
programs that Apple makes available to Compuserve, GENIE, and Delphi do come
with rather restrictive terms.
Of course, this doesn't prevent C$erve from trying to claim the copyright on
other people's software anyway. . . An issue of their "magazine" I received
shortly before I cancelled my account (they imposed a $5 per month minimum
on accounts billed via Checkfree and would not listen to the suggestion that
they scrap the minimum fee and handle the Checkfree issue as GENIE does) had
a letter column in which one of the Compuserve people made the amazing claim
that copying programs downloaded from their libraries violated their "rules"
and ** Federal law **. Get the shovels for this one, folks.
> Maybe I should copyright it, and then sue 'em! :-)
In fact, copyrighting programs that you plan to give away is generally a good
idea, because you then have some authority to prevent misuse. If one marks a
program as public domain, anyone can do anything with it including selling it.
-- Thomas Newtondillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (10/10/86)
Copyright? This is *really* funny. I hope Compuserve looses a *lot* of business from their idiotic policy. How selfish can you get? -Matt
espen@well.UUCP (Peter Espen) (10/10/86)
In article <812@gould9.UUCP>, joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) writes: > According to October 6, 1986 InfoWorld: > Compuserve Information Service has threatened a bulletin > board operator with legal action for offering on his board > public domain programs he obtained on-line from Compuserve. > Compuserve, a common source for public domain programs, > said it considered the entire contents of its service to be > copyrighted, a pokciy that caused user outcry when it was > first adopted last year.... > [The BBS operator] received a registered letter from > Compuserve's attorneys stating that he was infringing on > Compuserve's copyright. The letter threatened him with > civil and criminal action... > > This is a good example of why I subscribe to USENET and not to > Compuserve. Don't believe everything you read. The report in Infoworld is inaccurate and incomplete. I am not saying that Compuserve is all that great, but the facts in this matter were distorted as they went through the grapevine, and I think Compuserve got a bit of a bum rap. (espen@well) >
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (10/10/86)
In article <812@gould9.UUCP> joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) writes: >According to October 6, 1986 InfoWorld: > Compuserve Information Service has threatened a bulletin > board operator with legal action for offering on his board > public domain programs he obtained on-line from Compuserve. > Compuserve, a common source for public domain programs, > said it considered the entire contents of its service to be > copyrighted, a pokciy that caused user outcry when it was > first adopted last year.... > [The BBS operator] received a registered letter from > Compuserve's attorneys stating that he was infringing on > Compuserve's copyright. The letter threatened him with > civil and criminal action... > >This is a good example of why I subscribe to USENET and not to >Compuserve. > This is a good example of why I don't subscribe to Infoworld. Here is what really happened: 1. Someone logs into the BBS in question, and finds a lot of stuff that is *NOT* public domain that was downloaded from CIS ( Compuserve ). 2. That person tells CIS. CIS asks Neil Shapiro, chief Sysop of MAUG(tm) to see if this is true. 3. Neil calls BBS. Finds it is true. Also finds an announcement that says that this BBS is downloading all the new stuff from the major networks every week, and for a $25 yearly fee to the BBS owner, there is no need to subscribe to CIS ( or any of the other networks ). 3a. Neil also deleted from MAUG(tm) a message announcing this BBS, since it is against MAUG(tm) and CIS policy to allow announcements of competing commercial services, which this BBS clearly is. 4. CIS lawyers tell BBS operator to stop making available copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. 5. Infoworld writes story without even contacting MAUG(tm) to find out their side of the story! It is pefectly OK with CIS for people to distribute public domain stuff that they get off of CIS. For stuff that is copyrighted, CIS policy is that you must get the permission of the copyright holder. For example, I have two desk accessories on CIS at the moment. One of them ( Maxwell ) states that it is public domain. CIS has no objection to anyone doing whatever they want with it. The other one ( HFS Find ) has a copyright notice. If anyone distributes that without asking me, CIS will be upset. This seems very reasonable to me. I think it is nice that if I upload a coyrighted work to CIS, then they will use their lawyers to enforce my rights. -- member, all HASA divisions POELOD ECBOMB -------------- ^-- Secret Satanic Message Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi or GEnie: mnementh
briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (10/10/86)
>According to October 6, 1986 InfoWorld: > Compuserve Information Service has threatened a bulletin > board operator with legal action for offering on his board > public domain programs he obtained on-line from Compuserve. > Compuserve, a common source for public domain programs, > said it considered the entire contents of its service to be > copyrighted, a pokciy that caused user outcry when it was > first adopted last year.... This is interesting, as many public domain programs have notices specifically PROHIBITING anyone else to claim ANY rights to that work. . . I'd just love to see CompuServe try this in court. -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) (No others need apply, though)
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (10/11/86)
In article <8050@sun.uucp>, chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach; Lord of the OtherRealms) writes: > According to CompuServe, the BBS operator was not sent the letter over > public domain or shareware material, but over files that were copyrighted > either by an author or by CompuServe that this BBS operator was downloading > and redistributing without permission. > > On top of this, the operator was making this material available on his BBS > for a fee of $25 (i.e. he was out to profit on compuServe material) and he > was advertising this BBS on CompuServe and telling people that this was > an alternative to paying CompuServe for the material they were supplying. > > The letter was sent after a number of authors who put copyrighted material > on compuServe complained to them about the infringement. > > InforWorld blew it. They never bothered to call Neil Shapiro (SYSOP of > MAUG on CompuServe) or CompuServe to check facts, they just published what > the BBS operator said. I gather that Chuq has not checked the facts directly, but is willing to take CompuServe's word as fact -- a dubious proposition, but I'll stipulate it, since it really has no bearing on my point. CompuServe did announce a policy of copyrighting what is on their system. It was sufficiently overbroad and vague to leave the policy ambiguous absent any enforcement efforts. On this first real test of the policy, it is unfortunate that InfoWorld did not get more information (violating the standard rule of Journalism 101.) However, this still leaves unresolved the issue of whether CompuServe's policy is fair, legal or viable. (That I believe it is not was the point of my one sentence.) We won't know what their actual policy is until several enforcement efforts (or the absence of any enforcement efforts.) If a non-profit user group is selling pd disks for $6, will CompuServe go after them? Or what if the same user group sells BBS memberships for $20/year? Either are certainly cheaper ways to get the software than downloading it at 1200 baud and $X/hour. -- Joel West MCI Mail: 282-8879 Western Software Technology, POB 2733, Vista, CA 92083 {cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (10/12/86)
>InfoWorld Blew It It did seem a little strange, glad it's been set straight. In light of these new facts, I will retract my earlier comment: > Copyright? This is *really* funny. I hope Compuserve looses >a *lot* of business from their idiotic policy. How selfish can you get? > > -Matt And Remove the Curse I cast that same night: @$#%@$#%#@$%!@#$#@()#@*% (Damn waste though, it took me two months to learn that curse) -Matt
dorner@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (10/14/86)
I subscribe to GEnie (which is MUCH cheaper than Compuserve, but seems to have all the things I'm looking for). There has been a big discussion there about the Compuserve "copyright". Evidently, Compuserve does not claim to have copyright to the programs themselves, but only their COLLECTION of them. They are claiming (correctly or not) that if you get it from C-serve, you are not allowed to redistribute it. But if you get the same program from somewhere else, the fact that it is also on Compuserve does not deny you the right to distribute it. I doubt that any single package would bring the ire of compuserve on someone. What they don't want to happen is exactly what seems to have happened with this BBS operator--someone downloading x zillion bytes of stuff from C-serve and then reposting it on his BBS. He even said, (evidently) "I got this from Compuserve." I'm not trying to justify C-serve's policy (seems a little fishy to me), but I did want to make it clear that they aren't claiming copyright to every package put there, just to their collection of them. ------- Steve Dorner University of Illinois Computing Services Office dorner@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU, ihnp4!cbosgd!uiucdcs!uxc!dorner I am the OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN not only of UIUC, but of the State of Illinois, The President of the United States, and the EMPEROR of the WORLD. All my decisions are final.
sba@aaec.OZ (Sal Barbagallo) (10/21/86)
In article <3828@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: > 4. CIS lawyers tell BBS operator to stop making available > copyrighted material without the permission of the > copyright holder. > > It is pefectly OK with CIS for people to distribute public domain stuff > that they get off of CIS. For stuff that is copyrighted, CIS policy is > that you must get the permission of the copyright holder. There seems to be some confusion about distributing copyrighted material. Many programs freely available have notices by the author that you are free to distribute it and give copies away to your friends. The same programs usually also contain copyright notices. The only thing the author wants to prevent is profiteering (which the BBS operator obviously was) and someone calling the program there own and then redistributing it either for self admiration or profit. If the author says that copies may be freely distributed, then copyright or not there seems to be nothing wrong with taking it off CIS and then redistributing it on USENET or other BBS as long as it is not for profit or personal gain. Sal
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (10/23/86)
Sal Barbagallo writes: > Tim Smith [ that's me!] writes: >> that they get off of CIS. For stuff that is copyrighted, CIS policy is >> that you must get the permission of the copyright holder. > [ he is talking about programs that say they may be freely distributed ] > If the author says that copies may be freely distributed, then copyright > or not there seems to be nothing wrong with taking it off CIS and then > redistributing it on USENET or other BBS as long as it is not for profit > or personal gain. Exactly. If a program says that it may be freely distributed, then CIS considers that as being "permission of the copyright holder". This is for non-commercial redistribution. They restrict commercial redistribution by the service agreement every CIS subscriber must sign. This has nothing to do with copyright. For more information, see the article I am about to post that contains a statement by Neil Shapiro of MAUG(tm) on the Inforworld/Sande incident, and a statement of CIS' policies. -- member, all HASA divisions POELOD ECBOMB -------------- ^-- Secret Satanic Message Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi or GEnie: mnementh