dnye@bbn.com (David Nye) (04/19/89)
Hello World.
I would like to discuss a subject that greatly disturbs me. On page 73 in the
May AMIGA Weird is a ad for Software Excitement public domain programs. They
give a listing of the disks that they sell and what is on them. They also give
a price of $7.00 per disk, and $5.00 a disk if you purchase 15 or more. On
------------- ---------------------------------------
page 95 of the same issue is the AMIGA Weird Public Domain Library. This is a
list of several disks for different dealers including Software Excitement,
DevWare, Chiron Conceptions, and SYSTEM EYES. These list the disks and the
contents and carry a price of $7.00 per disk and $1.00 handling charge.
----------------------------------------
What I am getting to is just this, from what I believe that the following
copywrite and distribution instructions means, clipped for the ARP 1.3
read.me;
All software, manuals, install programs and associated material are
Copyright (c) 1987,88,89 by Arp Authors. All Rights Reserved.
The ARP Installation program and accompanying documentation may be
freely distributed provided no changes or additions to the materials
--------------------------------------------------------------------
are made.
---------
AmigaDOS is a trademark of Commodore-Amiga, Inc.
Unix is a trademark of AT&T Information Systems.
that you can distribute freely all of the programs as long as you do not charge
more than the cost of the disk, label, and the miniscule cost of coping the
material onto the new disk and postage if the disk is sent to the person asking
for the disk. This cost should NEVER come anywhere near $7.00!!! and then to
Charge another $1.00 for HANDLING is insane if not illegal.
I would like to hear from Steve Tibbett about his opinion on AMIGA Wierd selling
his VirusX 1.32 on disk, the only thing on this disk, for $7.00 ! I think he
would like to see some of the PROFIT AMIGA Wierd is making on his Great
program. This strikes another cord in my complaint, selling these disks with
only one or two programs (about 45% full) and charging $7.00 for the disk. If
you are distrubuting PD disks you should make every effort to make the disk
FULL, such as Fred Fish, Amicus, and our users group does. Any less and you
are CLEARLY making a PROFIT at the expence of the programmer who slaved over
his program for months or years. I think this is getting out of hand and will
very soon kill the Wonderful PD support the AMIGA has enjoyed most of her life.
How can we stop this from happening??? The answer is obvious DON'T buy this
JUNKWARE from these Sleazy Operators !!!!
ANY Comments ???
Just one mans opinion.
Dave NYE
ps. Flame OFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= // Dave Nye -- President, Southern New Hampshire AMIGA Users Group =
= // dnye@bbn.com dnye%bbn.com@relay.cs.net ...!harvard!bbn!dnye =
= \\// BBN, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., My Employers computer, MY opinion.. =
===============================================================================dnye@bbn.com (David Nye) (04/21/89)
In article <99856@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >If you think you can make a profit selling PD disks for $7.00 or less >then you should go for it. In fact you would have a hard time doing so. >That isn't to say that you couldn't get back more money than you spent >on supplies, just that when you figured in stuff like wear on your Amiga, >time spent running to the post office, etc etc you will find yourself making >minimum wage or less. That doesn't count as profit. You are in fact subsidizing >the distribution from the donation of your time. That's just the point, PD is suposed to be non-profit by definition. These companies are trying to make a profit by selling the disks not as a SERVICE to the AMIGA community, such as Fred FISH, but for profit. I can not blame them for wanting to make a profit, but PD, by definition, should only FREELY distributed, not SOLD for PROFIT at the expence of Joe Programmer who was gracious enough to put his program into the public domain. The companies should stay out of the PD distribution game or at least not let there prices creep up from $3.00 last year to $8.00 this year. Chuck, I think this is a serious issue and from the E-Mail response I've gotten MANY other people think so also. > >--Chuck McManis >uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com >These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. Dave Nye --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = // Dave Nye -- President, Southern New Hampshire AMIGA Users Group = = // dnye@bbn.com dnye%bbn.com@relay.cs.net ...!harvard!bbn!dnye = = \\// BBN, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., My Employers computer, MY opinion.. = ===============================================================================
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (04/21/89)
In article <38944@bbn.COM> dnye@mikey.bbn.com (David Nye) writes: > That's just the point, PD is suposed to be non-profit by definition. These ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >companies are trying to make a profit by selling the disks not as a SERVICE to >the AMIGA community, such as Fred FISH, but for profit. I can not blame them >for wanting to make a profit, but PD, by definition, should only FREELY ^^^^^^^^^^ >distributed, not SOLD for PROFIT at the expence of Joe Programmer who was >gracious enough to put his program into the public domain. The companies >should stay out of the PD distribution game or at least not let there prices >creep up from $3.00 last year to $8.00 this year. Dave, You seem to be really "ignorant" of the meaning of Public Domain. If something is in the public domain, then BY DEFINITION anybody can do ANYTHING with it. This includes eating it, breaking it, selling it, changing it, WHATEVER you want. If Joe programmer had decided to put his program into the public domain, he has also decided to relinquish ALL rights to the program. As such anybody can sell that program for any fee that he sees fit, and he does not have to make the program available freely in any particular fashion. In fact, "collections" of public domain programs can legally be copyrighted and distribution of the collection then restricted. Fred Fish, for example, could have copyrighted his Fish Disks collection. Don't complain is somebody is profiting from Public Domain software: it is perfectly legal. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jbwaters@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (J. Brian Waters) (04/22/89)
In article <38944@bbn.COM>, dnye@bbn.com (David Nye) writes: > That's just the point, PD is suposed to be non-profit by definition. These By whose definition? Yours I take it. The legal one does not say anything about someone not being able to make a profit from PD stuff. If something is in the public domain you are free to do whatever you want with it. No one is sticking a gun to someones head and forcing them to buy the disks. The people that do so want to buy the disks at the offered price. They may be able to find another source of them that is cheaper. This would require them to invest more time to look for the source. Maybe they value the time saved more then the cost of the disks? If you want to you are free to set up a competing business that provides the disks more cheaply. If people do not want the service of the disks at the asking price the company will either have to provide them more cheaply or go out of business. If people do find it worth it to them to buy the PD disk and you don't then what is wrong with that? If the demand is present then what is wrong with it? If the demand is not present then the problem will take care of itself. -- Brian Waters <backbone>!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jbwaters
dnye@bbn.com (David Nye) (04/22/89)
In article <16686@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >Dave, > >You seem to be really "ignorant" of the meaning of Public Domain. If something ^^^^^^^^^^ >is in the public domain, then BY DEFINITION anybody can do ANYTHING with it. Smolder, Smolder, Crackle, Pop....... Slowly Dave climbs out of the chared and molten heaping mass that was his AMIGA 2000...Ouch!!! I STAND, well sit, CORRECTED !!! Thanks "Marco Papa Doc" and several others for seting me straight. >-- Marco Papa 'Doc' >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu > "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ~^%#@ Dave Nye !*#%@~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ps. anybody have a new AMIGA they can let me have for awhile ??? Just kidding.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = // Dave Nye -- President, Southern New Hampshire AMIGA Users Group = = // dnye@bbn.com dnye%bbn.com@relay.cs.net ...!harvard!bbn!dnye = = \\// BBN, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., My Employers computer, MY opinion.. = ===============================================================================
gilham@polya.Stanford.EDU (Fred Gilham) (04/22/89)
In article <6886@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> jbwaters@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (J. Brian Waters) writes: > >By whose definition? Yours I take it. The legal one does not say anything >about someone not being able to make a profit from PD stuff. If something is >in the public domain you are free to do whatever you want with it. > This issue discussed before, when someone was selling copies of HACK. I think we need to remember that there is a difference between 1) PD software 2) Freely redistributable software that is copywrited The latter is copywrited, and often there are specific statements in the copywrite message that nobody can make any money off the distribution (except perhaps the author). If people are making a profit off the distribution of this kind of software, they are violating the spirit of the copywrite the author has placed on the software. Note that many authors do this because of a philosophical position -- "help stamp out software hoarding". I think that if people are gouging on distributing freely distributable software, this fact should be made known. Those whose copywrite is being infringed can take whatever action they feel is appropriate; the rest of us can avoid the sellers and make alternate sources known. On the other hand, public domain is public domain, and if people want to retain rights to their software they should not place it in the public domain. By the way, I often see things like "This software is public domain except it cannot be sold for profit", with or without an accompanying copyright notice. Is this legally meaningful? -Fred Gilham
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/22/89)
In article <38944@bbn.COM> (David Nye) comments on my article : > That's just the point, PD is suposed to be non-profit by definition. This is the point. PD stands for "Public Domain." Public Domain has *very* specific legal definition. The definition states that you can do *anything* you want with PD material. About the only thing you can't do is control what someone else does with that material. If a disk or a program is in the public domain and I sell copies of it for $80 each to people who don't know that they can get it for free, unless I've told them that they can't get it anywhere else (which would be fraud) I am operating on a completely legal and up and up business. I'm no worse than the guy selling $3 12 oz cans of Coca Cola at the stadium. > These companies are trying to make a profit by selling the disks not as > a SERVICE to the AMIGA community, such as Fred FISH, but for profit. And there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. One would think that in a free market worked, then these people would have no customers since no one would pay money for something they could get for free and yet people still pay $7.00, $8.00, even $10.00 a disk for this stuff. So what are they paying for?!?! Ask them and you would find out they they are paying for *service*. The service that gets these PD programs, collects them onto a disk and then offers them a catalog from which to choose programs from. > I can not blame them for wanting to make a profit, but PD, by definition, > should only FREELY distributed, not SOLD for PROFIT at the expence of > Joe Programmer who was gracious enough to put his program into the > public domain. The companies should stay out of the PD distribution > game or at least not let there prices creep up from $3.00 last year > to $8.00 this year. They aren't selling Joe Programmers software for a profit, they are selling *easy access* to Joe Programmers software for a profit. Ask someone, "You have a choice of $10 for this disk with 400K of programs on it, or 10 calls to 10 bbs' which will take about 6 hours to collect this same set of programs for "free". Well what is 6hrs worth to you? $10? It is to me. If Joe Programmer puts his program in the public domain then he shouldn't care squat if someone else pays a third party $10/disk to find various programmers like Joe who are contributing this stuff, rounding them up, and putting them together on one disk for him to use. If Joes doesn't want this to happen he *RETAINS* the copyright and makes the restriction that copies cannot be sold for more than media cost + 10% or whatever the hell he feels like, and if one of these companies trys to sell his program for $10 he sues them ! He'll win, because he has clearly stated his restrictions and they have clearly violated them! So where the hell is the problem? > Chuck, > I think this is a serious issue and from the E-Mail response I've >gotten MANY other people think so also. It is a serious issue, many software authors are seriously undereducated as to which is more valuable, a display hack that inverts the display or a collection of 20 display hacks that do 20 different things to the display. A collection of PD works *can* be copyrighted and sold by the rightful copyright holder (the collector) for whatever profit they can get out of it. If you don't like this then *protect* your software, retain that copyright and put these guys out of business. Don't be suprised if people like Fred don't distribute your stuff either though. With understanding will come enlightenment and you will see that there isn't really a problem at all. [P.S. Quit putting "E-Mail" in your followup-to line, that screws up rn something terrible. Thanks.] --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "A most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!"
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (04/22/89)
In article <8687@polya.Stanford.EDU> gilham@polya.Stanford.EDU (Fred Gilham) writes: >By the way, I often see things like "This software is public domain except >it cannot be sold for profit", with or without an accompanying copyright >notice. Is this legally meaningful? No, it is a contradiction in terms. By definition, public domain software CAN be sold for profit. ANY profit. Including the above notice, without the copyright notice, is equivalent to relinquishing ALL rights to the software in question. The courts have maintained that the copyright holder HAS to do appropriate actions to make sure that the item (software/firmware) does not go into the public domain. The same is true for trademarks (which should appropriately be marked TM). BAYER lost the Aspirin trademark. XEROX hasn't yet, since it is trying VERY HARD to disallow the uses of "xeroxing" as a verb. Intel lost the copyright on some of the chips it licensed to NEC, because it failed to put the appropriate copyright notice on the chips. Lesson to learn: put the appropriate legal copyright notice if you want to keep your rights. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/22/89)
In article <8687@polya.Stanford.EDU> (Fred Gilham) writes: >By the way, I often see things like "This software is public domain except >it cannot be sold for profit", with or without an accompanying copyright >notice. Is this legally meaningful? >-Fred Gilham Yes and no, Yes by legal definition the software now has no restrictions on it. The author's subsequent comment about selling it for profit has no meaning. People *please* if you want to retain any rights at all, never ever say "Public domain" in relationship to your program on the disk or anywhere, use "Freely redistributable" or "freely licensed" which don't invalidate your copyright. The quote that Fred supplies is similar to "I murdered the victim, but it was only manslaughter." You can't have it both ways. And there is no reason to put something in the public domain so that it can be given away. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "A most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!"
bartonr@psu-cs.cs.pdx.edu (Amiga 1000) (04/22/89)
In article <38944@bbn.COM> dnye@mikey.bbn.com (David Nye) writes: > That's just the point, PD is suposed to be non-profit by definition. These >companies are trying to make a profit by selling the disks not as a SERVICE to >the AMIGA community, such as Fred FISH, but for profit. I can not blame them >for wanting to make a profit, but PD, by definition, should only FREELY >distributed, not SOLD for PROFIT at the expence of Joe Programmer who was I think by definition PD means "in the domain of the public". Think of songs that are PD (I believe "House of the Rising Sun" is one) - anyone can record their own version, release it, sell it, perform it, whatever. As for "freely distributable", I take that to mean distributable without restriction, not distributable without charge. I think a lot of confusion is caused by the fact that the magazines that sell these disks refer to everything they sell as "public domain", which may not be true. An article in the May AmigaWorld also implied that everything on PLink was public domain, which is not the case.
dbk@teroach.UUCP (Dave Kinzer) (04/23/89)
Did the US sign up to the Berne Convention (or something like that?) I fuzzily recall that one of the provisions was the _right_ of the author to _remove_ his works from the public domain. I may be all wet on this one, (but I'm sure the flames will dry me.) | // GOATS - Gladly Offering All Their Support Dave Kinzer (602)897-3085| | // >> In Hell you need 4Mb to Multitask! << uunet!mcdphx!teroach!dbk | | \X/ #define policy_maker(name) (name->salary > 3 * dave.salary) |
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (04/23/89)
In article <38944@bbn.COM> dnye@mikey.bbn.com (David Nye) writes: > That's just the point, PD is suposed to be non-profit by definition. These >companies are trying to make a profit by selling the disks not as a SERVICE to >the AMIGA community, such as Fred FISH, but for profit. I thought that Fred Fish did make some money off the sale of disks, albeit small. Maybe he's set up a non-profit corporation that I didn't know about. -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet *** What, me worry? {backbone|rutgers|uunet}!ukma!sean *** ``A computer network should be considerably faster than a slug.'' -Me
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (04/24/89)
In article <10769@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> dbk@teroach.UUCP (Dave Kinzer) writes: > Did the US sign up to the Berne Convention (or something like that?) >I fuzzily recall that one of the provisions was the _right_ of the author >to _remove_ his works from the public domain. Yes, I belive the US has now signed the Berne Convention (I recall seeing it in the WSJ at the beginning of April). The main difference is that in Berne Convention member countries no formalities, such as notices of registration, are required for copyright protection; copyrigth duration is at least the author's life plus 50 years, and the author has "moral" rights, which briefly consist of the right to claim of authorship, disclaim of authorship of copies, and right to object to any distortion, mutilation or modification of the author's work injurious to his/her reputation. Provisions allow the "fair use" of copyrighted material in quotation for a variety of purposes (educational, reporting). I have no idea whether something that has been put in the "public domain", can later be reinstated as copyrighted. That sounds pretty unlikely to me. ONE THE OTHER HAND, proper registration with the US copyright office provides more extensive BENEFITS. In particular, when infringement is proved, one can collect statutory damages and attorney's fees, not just actual damages (which are usually very small). So even in light of the US participation in the Berne Convention, it is still fairly useful to register with the copyright office (which includes using "proper" copyright notices, too). -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
daves@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Dave Scroggins) (04/27/89)
>I would like to discuss a subject that greatly disturbs me. On page 73 in the >May AMIGA Weird is a ad for Software Excitement public domain programs. They >give a listing the disks that they sell and what is on them. They also give >a price of $7.00 per disk, and $5.00 a disk if you purchase 15 or more. On >for the disk. This cost should NEVER come anywhere near $7.00!!! and then to >Charge another $1.00 for HANDLING is insane if not illegal. >FULL, such as Fred Fish, Amicus, and our users group does. Any less and you >are CLEARLY making a PROFIT at the expence of the programmer who slaved over On page 36 of the same issue they list, "Alternate Sources of PD Software" (The article is about Compuserve type things.) The Fred Fish Disk Collection -- address here --- ($7 per disk, 3 disks minimum) There are two others, including the AMIGAWORLD PD collection, which sell for $7.00/disk. There are two others which sell for less ($6 and $4). It sounds as though Software Exitement is right in line with Mr. Fish and the others. If you want to beat the cost of BUYING the disks, I suppose you could trundle over to the local AMIGA store and copy some of their PD stuff. (You gotta buy the disks though. ;-) ) Dave S.
fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) (05/03/89)
In article <11572@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >I thought that Fred Fish did make some money off the sale of disks, albeit >small. Maybe he's set up a non-profit corporation that I didn't know >about. Just for the record on this subject, yes I do make a small amount of profit from distributing disks, when we define profit as the difference between the fee charged for a disk and the direct cost of sending out the disk. Even at the lowest distribution fee I have ($2.50 each for orders of the entire library of existing disks), with blank disks priced at between 69 cents and about a $1.25, it would be hard to spend all of the remaining monies on other costs directly associated with sending out disks. When you factor in other costs, such as supplying several hundred free catalog disks each month to new users who read about the library in one of the Amiga rags (some send $1 or a few stamps to help offset the cost, which helps), my phone bills and BIX charges which average about $100-$200 a month, plus the occasional cost of new hardware like my HardFrame + 80Mb Quantum which makes life much easier (great combo!), etc, then things start to get cloudier about what is profit and what isn't. Is the hardware profit? Hard to say, since it is unknown whether or not I would have the need for it without worrying about where to put all this good stuff while I organize new disks. Is the one or two trips a year to various Amiga functions profits? And these are only the things that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure if I consulted my books I could find other expenses which come out of "profits" for which it would be hard to decide if the expenditures would have been made if I had no extra source of funds to draw on. We won't even mention the thousands of hours I have probably spent over the last three years collecting and organizing the library... :-) As someone previously noted, if you put a statement like "cannot be distributed for profit" in your material, unless you send it to me directly so I know it is ok to include it, I will probably reject it when it comes my way. In rare cases, if something is interesting enough and the author is easy to contact, then I'll check to see if it is ok to include, before rejecting it. In the "good old days" I would probably have spent more effort trying to establish whether or not I could use it. Now all I have to do is look at the pile of stuff I get every month (thanks everyone!) and choose something else. Speaking of something else, I just finished off disk 210 this evening, so watch for the announcement of disks 201-210 in the next day or so. -Fred -- # Fred Fish, 1835 E. Belmont Drive, Tempe, AZ 85284, USA # 1-602-491-0048 asuvax!{nud,mcdphx}!estinc!fnf
martens@dinghy.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (12/05/89)
I ordered 10 PD and shareware disks from Gemini Shareware, and figured I'd pass along my experiences: Pluses: 1) the guy that took my order was able to answer all my questions 2) the price, $3 / disk plus a relatively small shipping fee, was pretty good. 3) it took less than a week to get the order Minuses: 1) three of the ten disks had unreadable tracks -- track 79 in two cases, tracks 39, 66, and one other in the third. A 30% failure rate is unacceptably high. I wonder if they use bad disks or a badly aligned drive. I haven't given them a call re replacing the disks, and I won't have time to figure out what I lost because of this yet. If it's just .info files or something else I'd never need, I won't bother them. If I can ftp it quickly, that's fine too. If I have a problem, I'll post a followup. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Expect a severe winter -- I saw a trailer full of snowmobiles heading south on US 23.