dowst@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV ("Henry P. Dowst") (02/14/88)
Topic 12 Sat Feb 13, 1988
UNCLE-DOS [ Tom W ] at 17:24 EST
Sub: GEnie's Copyright Policy
This topic is for questions and answers about GEnie's policies regarding
ownership of the information available here. 2 message(s) total
**********
---------- Category 1, Topic 12
Message 1 Sat Feb 13, 1988
UNCLE-DOS [ Tom W ] at 17:31 EST
At 11:15 AM on February 10, 1988 Neil Shapiro, Chief Sysop of the
Apple II area, MAUG(tm), on CompuServe, posted MAUG(tm) message #171913,
which made a number of inflammatory misstatements about GEnie's
copyright policy. A word- for-word copy of that message was posted here
by a mutual subscriber, however, because of CompuServe's own copyright
claims to the message, I had to delete the word-for-word version. I
encourage Neil to post the original here himself. Here's a paraphrase:
Neil thinks GEnie's copyright policy is unfair and unreasonable. He is
galled that GEnie's policy is "exactly the policy that has been falsely
reported as being CompuServe's and which we have had to take lots of
heat over before telling people what the REAL policy here happens to
be." Neil says that under GEnie's policy there is no such thing as
freeware.
CompuServe's policy, according to Neil, is that an uploaded program is
treated as public domain if the author states that it is public domain.
Public domain files may be shared by members, Neil says. If an author
doesn't say whether a program is public domain, then the file is
considered to have an "informal author's copyright." Anyone who wants
to upload such a file must contact the author for permission.
GEnie's policy, according to Neil, is to copyright "EVEN STATED
public- domain files on their network. The difference is that CompuServe
merely copyrights the compilation of the files. GEnie...actually
COPYRIGHTS THE INDIVIDUAL copies of the files....I think it is inimical
to the free flow of information, underhanded double-dealing with
freeware authors who specifically place material in the public domain,
and very two-faced when you consider all of the lying, anti-CIS bullshit
(sorry) which many of the sysops on GEnie have happily promulgated at
every turn."
"I really always try to never cut down 'the competition.' I try to
never give an opinion as to the networks other than to say that the
MAUG(tm) staff has always and will always try to make MAUG(tm) the best
place that you can visit with a computer. But, in this case, if I don't
say what I believe is right then I think I would have failed a trust.
What is right is to allow files and programs the distribution EXPECTED
and/or REQUESTED by the authors. For a network to glom onto even the
most minuscule of rights not fully granted by an author is absolutely
reprehensible. Sorry, but that's how I feel," he concludes.
-----
Bll Loden, General Manager of GEnie, posted the following message in the
MAUG(tm) area a couple of days later, however, it was deleted within
four hours:
12-Feb-88 17:00:00
Sb: #171953-GEnie Copyrights
Fm: Bill Louden 70010,102
To: Neil Shapiro/Chief Sysop 76703,401
Neil, I am pleased to see you trying to explain the GEnie service to
MAUG users; but you are inaccurate on a number of points. First, GEnie
has a compilation copyright policy just like CompuServe--we DO NOT claim
to OWN or SUPERSEDE the rights of the owners'. We do, however, maintain
that files uploaded to GEnie should not be downloaded and then
re-uploaded on other services - that, I believe is still CIS's position
as well.
If a owner uploads a file to GEnie with explicit instructions to have
the file re-distributed on other services, GEnie has no problems and
would NOT intervene in that distribution.
I realize that the success of GEnie has impacted your revenue stream
Neil; but there are more professional ways to compete and provide a
quality service to ALL online users than to resort to calling me
"sleezy." Give me a break.
P.S. I do not object to your re-prints of the GEnie policy guides on
MAUG; you also have my permission to publish our Rates and Services
INDEX as well.
Best Regards,
Bill Louden
General Manager
GEnie GE Information Services Company
-----
Here's what GEnie's subscriber contract says about rights to
information (emphasis mine):
3. Proprietary Rights
All of the information, material and software available for access
through the GEnie Service is the property of the Company OR OF ITS
INFORMATION PROVIDERS. You agree not to copy, publish, commercially
exploit, sell, transmit or otherwise reproduce that information,
material or software, except as may be expressly permitted by the
Company OR THE INFORMATION PROVIDER at the time access is made available
to you, and then only on condition that you reproduce and include
therein any copyright notice of other proprietary legend contained in
the information, material or software at the time of access. You
acknowledge that any violation of this restriction is an infringement of
copyright or other proprietary rights.
"Information provider" is not defined. When GEnie's lawyers wrote the
contract, they probably meant the area "sysops", although a judge or
jury might determine that it means, for example, the original author of
a public domain program, or perhaps the uploader of a public domain
program (if uploaded by someone other than the author).
In any case, as far as public domain material goes, the author, the
uploader, and I have all given our express permission for you to do
whatever you want with the material by virtue of the fact that it IS
public domain. Public domain materials in GEnie's Apple II areas consist
of all items that do not have their own copyright notice.
Items that include a copyright notice are not public domain. However,
sometimes authors who have copyrighted their work give permission for it
to be used for non-commercial purposes. Sometimes these authors ask for
shareware fees. Sometimes they expressly prohibit republication of the
material after it has been downloaded from GEnie. GEnie's proprietary
rights clause appears to me to have been carefully worded to protect the
rights of all of these people.
I don't know anything about CompuServe's contract or policy, so it
would be difficult for me to compare ours with theirs. I suspect
CompuServe's policy is essentially the same as ours, however, or at
3?
MQ
"!
"
}r5kVVn aren't worth fighting over. Peace, Neil.
xDTom Weishaar
----------
Category 1, Topic 12
Message 2 Sat Jul 25, 1987
J.LUBIN [Jim] (Forwarded)
To all concerned:
I would like to know why people condone the copying of music (i.e.
digitized music for the //gs) and condemn others for copying of computer
software calling it 'piracy'.
The following message was found on a piece of software. This was the
only warning I found out of 9 programs I looked at.
(Lunar Leeper by Sierra On-Line, Inc.)
"UNAUTHORIZED COPYING OF THESE PRODUCTS IS A VIOLATION OF FERDERAL LAW.
(TITLE 17, U.S. -CODE, SECTION 506.) VIOLATION MAY CARRY A FINE OF UP TO
$50,000, OR IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH."
The following message was found a cassette tape picked at ramdom. They
all say it.
(St. Elmo's Fire; Atlantic Recording Corporation)
"Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by
Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution."
Another:
(Kate Bush: The Whole Story; EMI America Records)
"ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION IS A VIOLATION OF
APPLICABLE LAWS."
Differances? Well, software companies go to much greater lengths to
enforce their copyrights (i.e. Copy Protection). Does this mean the law
applies less to the music industry. The music industry does not condone
the copying, unauthorized reproduction, or duplication of their
products. This is shown in the controversy over Digital Audio Tapes.
Solutions? Well, as I see it there are two solutions. Either allow
copying of computer software, or do not allow the copying (digitization)
of music.
Jim Lubin *S