brad@looking.UUCP (03/18/87)
This may be an area in which the law is behind the technology. We should examine what *should* be rather than what exists among the out of date laws. What the stargate -- and other satellite folks -- really want to sell is *telecommunications*. They really have not desire to sell or own the transmitted materials. Now telecommunication is a valid service, and it costs money to set it up, and the equipment that does it is privately owned, so in my moral books, telecommunications are a thing that deserve to be protected. The service provided by stargate is, in theory, the moving of information from point A (say, Atlanta) to point B (say, a customer in Los Angeles). It seems perfectly fair that Stargate and the LA customer could enter into a contract that says, "I will move the information you request from Atlanta to you, so long as you pay me and don't resell (or give away) this moving." Perhaps some are suggesting that this sort of contract be illegal because it would forbid the reselling (or giving away) of PD information that was moved for a fee. The point here is that what is being sold is the moving of the information, and you can't give away that moved information without also giving away the moving of it which is inherently within it. Now such a restriction isn't a restriction on the information itself. Anybody else is free to move the information (if it is PD) from Atlanta to wherever they want. By why should it be illegal to restrict further motions of information that could not have existed without the original telecommunications service. If you wish to make such a contract illegal, you will seriously hurt the economies of such telecommunications. Any customer for telecommunications of PD information will have to be charged enough to pay for telecommunications to EVERYBODY in their nearby region. This would wreck the industry. If you are using a service, and the generators of that service request compensation, you should pay them or not make use of their service. Is this not a valid moral principle? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mason@tmsoft.UUCP (03/18/87)
In article <759@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >This may be an area in which the law is behind the technology. We should >examine what *should* be rather than what exists among the out of date >laws. > >What the stargate -- and other satellite folks -- really want to sell >is *telecommunications*. They really have not desire to sell or own >the transmitted materials. > ... >It seems perfectly fair that Stargate and the LA customer could enter into >a contract that says, > "I will move the information you request from Atlanta to you, so long as > you pay me and don't resell (or give away) this moving." I agree with Brad that the service Stargate is selling is telecommunications, but I disagree that this gives them the moral right to restrict access to (or distribution of) PD information. There are already precedents for selling compilations of PD software. Groups like PC SIG, and companies like Workman, have been selling compilation disks for years. It serves a purpose, and presumably at least pays for itself. With these there is NO implication that you cannot pass on the works singly or as a group to others. I can see no reason why stargate should want to restrict this, particularly as this is a 'volunteer effort' to 'help the USENET community' get 'timely information'. Either there are enough companies who are currently paying phone bills who would rather subscribe to Stargate to get news faster, or there aren't. If there are, fine, the whole flow of news will speed up, and be cheaper overall for the net. If there aren't, also fine, the satelite technology just hasn't matured enough for the cost-benefit ratio to exceed that of long distance phones. Why can't the Stargate people look at this as a simple business decision, rather than get religious about it, and trying to be coercive? If Stargate is to be open and Stargate content can be distributed, GREAT, there is a significant chance my company would subscribe (and get reimbursed for part of the cost by neighbouring sites). If it will be closed, I'm sorry to hear it, and I will probably start including these silly copyright notices, as I am very concerned about the precedent that would be set for distribution of intellectual property. ../Dave -- ../Dave Mason, TM Software Associates (Compilers & System Consulting) ..!{utzoo seismo!mnetor utcsri utgpu lsuc}!tmsoft!mason
shap@sfsup.UUCP (03/27/87)
In article <759@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP writes: > > The service provided by stargate is, in theory, the moving of information > from point A (say, Atlanta) to point B (say, a customer in Los Angeles). > > It seems perfectly fair that Stargate and the LA customer could enter into > a contract that says, > "I will move the information you request from Atlanta to you, so long as > you pay me and don't resell (or give away) this moving." > > Perhaps some are suggesting that this sort of contract be illegal because > it would forbid the reselling (or giving away) of PD information that was > moved for a fee. The point here is that what is being sold is the moving > of the information, and you can't give away that moved information without > also giving away the moving of it which is inherently within it. The above statement is the crux of Brad's argument. A little more consideration about the implications of this should convince you that this would be horrible when generalized. If I pay for a point-A to point-B service, I can do whatever I want with what goes over that service. This is legally upheld for a number of good reasons, and I refer you to the court decisions regarding the culpability of the telephone companies with respect to information propagated over the phone lines. In a nutshell: the phone companies cannot be held liable because they provide a point to point service and have no involvement in the use of the service. Note that werethis a broadcast service the ruling would not hold, nor does it hold if the transmitter performs a substantive editing function. If we believe your tenet, it follows that the transmitting agency is *liable* for the consequences of the transmitted information. Given the noise content of the net, STARGATE wouldn't last long. In summary, STARGATE can copyright and/or restrict what it legally owns, including digests, commentaries, etc. But it must abide by the law in putting its documents together. If I restrict my article from inclusion in a digest in the copyright, STARGATE cannot apply the laws which would render ownership unto them. Jon Shapiro Copyright (c) 1987 Jonathan S. Shapiro. Copying without fee is permitted provided that the copies are not made for direct commercial gain and credit to the source is given. Inclusion in digests prohibited.