moore@NCSC.ARPA (Moore) (01/05/87)
I don't want to start any of the pseudo-legal arguments that came about with BREAKOUT.ACC last time (God forbid!), but I have a question concerning things like the COLDBOOT.PRG posted last week: What is the status of software distributed by subscription on magazine disks like STart and Compute! for the ST? Is it public domain? Is it illegal for my brother-in-law, who has a subscription to both STart and Compute, to send me a copy of the disk? Constructive comments only. If you must flame, please send them to rick@ncsc, as he hardly *ever* gets any mail.... Jim Moore@NCSC.arpa
appelbau@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Marc L. Appelbaum) (01/05/87)
Both START and Compute ST have copyrights on thier magazines and software. They are not public domain programs. Marc -- |============================================================================| |Marc L. Appelbaum "Insanity is just a state of mind"| |Arpa: marc@aim.rutgers.edu Uucp:rutgers!ru-blue!appelbaum| |============================================================================|
store2@ihuxi.UUCP (Wilcox) (01/06/87)
<*******************[Ignore header path]*******************> > What is the status of software distributed by subscription on magazine disks > like STart and Compute! for the ST? Is it public domain? Is it illegal for > my brother-in-law, who has a subscription to both STart and Compute, to send > me a copy of the disk? > I don't remember what ANTIC Publishing's policy regarding their programs is but I do remember the last article I saw in Compute! Their stance at that time was that THEY did not consider it legal for you to have a copy of a program from their magazine unless you also owned the magazine. So if you get a copy from someone else (saving you all the typing), you should have bought the issue of Compute! that it was printed in. BTW, if you subscribe to DELPHI, you can find the programs from the current issue of Analog Computing on there according to what they say in the magazine. I do not subscribe to DELPHI and have not checked it out for myself. Analog only keeps the programs from the current issue on the board. They state right under the heading PERMISSIONS in the front of every issue that BBS's and club libraries can do the same thing for all programs that are not specifically identified as 'not public domain'. This seems to be the most reasonable policy I have seen recently. Hope this helps... Kit Kimes AT&T--Information Systems Labs 1100 E. Warrenville Rd. Naperville, IL 60566 ...ihnp4!iwvae!kimes
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (01/06/87)
In article <8211@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> appelbau@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU writes: >Both START and Compute ST have copyrights on thier magazines and >software. They are not public domain programs. So in the strictest sense, one cannot copy the programs onto magnetic (or any other) media, even if one purchases the magazine? That's OK, you say? Well, what if I own the magazine with diskette? Clearly, I have purchased the program(s), and can execute them from that diskette. But frequently, the publishers pack a whole bunch of code/programs on the things, and I need to copy (ooh! there's that word!) them onto another diskette in order to conveniently run the things (and besides, I like using DS diskettes or a hard disk)? That's OK, you say? Well, what if a colleague owns the magazine, but not the diskette; can he get a copy of my diskette, or at least one program from the diskette? That is verboten, you say? What about the user's group which has a single subscription to both STart and Compute ST, and puts the diskettes in the member diskette library; can they only execute the programs from the original diskette? What I'm trying to get at is that there seems to be a large gap between the strict legal sense of the two domains. I suspect that the publishers would not wish the copyright to be absolutely adhered to in the sense of the first two examples above. The third and fourth are a bit more questionable. And I would assume that they don't want anybody who doesn't own the particular issue to be using the programs from that issue, though again, I may be wrong. The only way to know for sure would be to ask them. Merely stating that the programs are copyrighted, and hence not public domain, may very well be correct, but it isn't sufficient to answer the questions posed. -- - Joel Plutchak uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu BITNET: plutchak@wiscmacc Disclaimer: My employer isn't smart enough to have an opinion, and I just *barely* am. The above is therefore my opinion, but just barely.
braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (braner) (01/07/87)
[] I do not subscribe to any of the ST magazines, since they are too expensive. (I am comparing them to the Apple II mags I used to subscribe to.) Then there's the copyrighted-programs problem. The reason to read a mag (for me) is to learn to program the machine. A side benefit is some slightly-useful programs taken out of the mag as-is. In the old days you had to type those in. Then came OPTIONAL disks, for extra money, to save you the typing time. Payment for typing service. You could still type them in by hand: they were printed in full in the mag, 5K of machine code and all. (I am thinking of NIBBLE magazine). The ST mags appear to be an advertising vehicle (slick and colorful) for some programs that come on the disk and are copyrighted. Well, that's stretching it: the programs are not so great as-is, and the source is still provided. But that's where they're heading, it seems. I perceive of a real magazine as a vehicle of open information. Reviews should be scathing when appropriate, programs should be printed and heavily commented. Machine readable versions can be offered, at extra price (think of the hardcopy as the extra if you want). Financing can come from subscribers and from advertizers. Most magazines proud themselves (in front of the advertizers) on how many people read each copy! Let the publishers decide: a mag, or a software outlet. They're not the same! - Moshe Braner
dobbs@marlin.UUCP (Lynn B. Dobbs) (01/07/87)
In article <811@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) writes: >In article <8211@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> appelbau@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU writes: >>Both START and Compute ST have copyrights on thier magazines and >>software. They are not public domain programs. > > So in the strictest sense, one cannot copy the programs onto magnetic >(or any other) media, even if one purchases the magazine? Compute! ST, at least, allows the original purchaser to create a backup disk for personal use. They ENCOURAGE it. The copyright notice printer on the disk label covers the exception to copying. The reality of the situation is, unless the material has copy protection, an individual can copy a disk as many times as he wants. Who is going to know or even care. The publishers don't want their business diluted by DISTRIBUTED FREE COPIES. They really don't give a rats if you make 200 backup copies for PERSONAL USE. -- dobbs@marlin.Nosc.ARPA noscvax!dobbs%marlin "An ADVENTURE is the result of bad planning." Admiral Richard E. Byrd --Lynn
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (01/08/87)
In article <923@marlin.UUCP> dobbs@marlin.UUCP (Lynn B. Dobbs) writes: >In article <811@uwmacc.UUCP> I wrote: >>In article <8211@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> appelbau@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU writes: >>>Both START and Compute ST have copyrights on thier magazines and >>>software. They are not public domain programs. >> >> So in the strictest sense, one cannot copy the programs onto magnetic >>(or any other) media, even if one purchases the magazine? > ... >The reality of the situation is, unless the material has copy protection, >an individual can copy a disk as many times as he wants. Who is going to >know or even care. The publishers don't want their business diluted by >DISTRIBUTED FREE COPIES. They really don't give a rats if you make 200 >backup copies for PERSONAL USE. That's what I fdigure. I was just being difficult. Anyway, I looked a bit more into the question, and found that ST-Log (from Analog?) has a somewhat representative policy, so I'll violate their copyright by including most of it here: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- No portion of this magazine may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher. Many of the programs printed herein are copyrighted and not public domain. Due, however, to numerous requests from Atari clubs and bulletin board systems, our policy does allow club libraries or individually-run BBSs to make certain programs from ST-Log available during the month printed on that issue's cover... This does not apply to programs which specifically state that they are *not* [their emphasis] public domain and, thus, are not for public distribution. In addition, any programs used must state that they are taken from ST-Log magazine. For further information... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, that says that at least some of the stuff is allowed to be owned and executed by people who never previously heard of the magazines, as long as they know where it came from. This is perfectly reasonable. I do agree somewhat with Moshe Braner's observation about the intended purpose of the magazines. I take a somewhat more optimistic view than he seems to; however, some magazines I've read (and subscribed to-- most notably certain 8-bit Atari mags) are primarily game-of-the-week, praise all software reviewed, advertising vehicles. Of the ST mags, Compute ST seems less technically oriented than STart, while the Atari Explorer is strictly expensive PR. Unfortunately, those ST magazines seem to have held over a good portion of their writers and reviewers from the 8-bit parents, and the results are fairly obvious-- reviews of games come out in favor of simplistic shoot-em-ups, while more intelligent fair (Sundog, Mindwheel) are just made fun of. And these people are expected to review *serious* software? Gak! -- - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster) Disclaimer: The above, unless otherwise labeled, constitutes personal opinion.
rjung@castor.usc.edu (Robert Jung) (03/06/88)
In article <1237@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Matthew Eric Seitz) writes: >In article <393@nunki.usc.edu" I wrote: >" While we're on the subject of type-in magazines... >" Does anyone know why magazines make a "big deal" (relatively speaking) about >"how their type-in programs cannot be sent around (on bulletin boards, for >"instance)? > > It is indeed because of copyright. If everyone could freely distribute >programs from magazines, the incentive to purchase the magazine would be >reduced. It's really no different from any other kind of software piracy. Does this mean that the magazine publishers think people buy their publications SOLELY for the type-in programs? I always bought an issue of (fill in your favorite magazine here) for the articles/tutorials in it. Type-in games and programs are merely icing on the cake. Besides, has any magazine ever persecuted anyone for uploading a type-in program to a BBS, or for distributing copies of a type-in program? Seems like a really minor point to me... --R.J. B-) ______________________________________________________________________________ Bitnet: rjung@castor.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == = = == = Power WithOUT the Price = == = ===== == ===== Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ====
seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) (03/06/88)
In article <403@nunki.usc.edu" rjung@castor.usc.edu (Robert Jung) writes:
" Does this mean that the magazine publishers think people buy their
"publications SOLELY for the type-in programs? I always bought an issue of
"(fill in your favorite magazine here) for the articles/tutorials in it.
"Type-in games and programs are merely icing on the cake.
"
" Besides, has any magazine ever persecuted anyone for uploading a
"type-in program to a BBS, or for distributing copies of a type-in program?
"Seems like a really minor point to me...
"
"
" --R.J.
" B-)
"
"______________________________________________________________________________
"Bitnet: rjung@castor.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == =
" = == =
" Power WithOUT the Price = == =
" ===== == =====
" Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ====
Whether people buy a magazine solely for the type-in programs and whether
a magazine has ever persecuted [sic] anyone for pirating their programs
isn't the point. The point is that magazine programs are protected by
copyright just as much as any other program. Frankly, I find the attitude of
this article frightening. I had heard that developer's were dropping the ST
due to rampant piracy, but up until now everyone I knew took software
piracy very seriously. Please, for the sake of fairness to those who produce
the programs, those who purchase legal copies, and for the sake of encouraging
support for our computer, do not tolerate software piracy, no matter how
minor it may appear.
Matthew Seitzrjung@castor.usc.edu (Robert Jung) (03/07/88)
Please, don't get me wrong. I don't support piracy, and I certainly don't
subscribe to the "all forms of data must be shared" school of anarchy. It's
just that I have this (skewed?) view that an issue of Antic is no different
from an issue of Time, and if I can send a photocopy of a Time article to a
friend with no problems, then what's the difference with a type-in
program...
Like I said, though, I mean no harm.
--R.J.
B-)
P.S. Moot point: The "Please do not distribute copies of our type-in
programs" disclaimers in Antic/Analog/etc. are kind of obscure, if you ask me.
I never even notices those messages until I was leafing through all of the
small print in Antic the other day...
______________________________________________________________________________
Bitnet: rjung@castor.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == =
= == =
Power WithOUT the Price = == =
===== == =====
Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ==== ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (Lee Dickey) (03/07/88)
In article <410@nunki.usc.edu> rjung@castor.usc.edu (Robert Jung) writes: > .. > Please, don't get me wrong. I don't support piracy, and I certainly don't >subscribe to the "all forms of data must be shared" school of anarchy. It's >just that I have this (skewed?) view that an issue of Antic is no different >from an issue of Time, and if I can send a photocopy of a Time article to a >friend with no problems, then what's the difference with a type-in >program... Of cource you *can* send a photocopy of a Time article to a friend. That does not make it right, nor does it guarantee that you will have "no problems". -- L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu ljdickey@watdcs.BITNET ljdickey@water.UUCP ...!uunet!water!ljdickey