Charging the net....

[Greg A. Woods]

In article <1991Apr22.192306.29134 at looking.on.ca> brad at looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
> Copyright controls who can copy a file.  By posting your message to
> USENET, you caused it to be copied to the file /u/news/news/admin/12345
> (or whatever) on my machine.    I can't charge you for that, because when
> I set up a USENET link I did it aware that people would send files to my
> machine in this manner without expectation of paying.
> 
> However, the copyright on your article is still yours.  You can put
> further restrictions on it.   You have, implicitly, given me permission to
> read it -- ie. copy it into my newsreader for formatting, etc.
>
> I also have, under copyright law, the right to make archival copies.
> I own the copy in the news spool directory which you sent to me.  But that's
> it.
> 
> If I wish to copy it to a disk file, perhaps processing it with uudecode or
> tar or ZIP or unshar or whatever, I need your permission.   This is implicit
> in most postings of software or binaries to this net.

It's amazing how some people will "bend" (or perhaps "tear, rip, and
bash" is more appropriate!) concepts to fit their desired goals.

Brad, if you send me a free copy of a book, I can do any number of
things with it while steadfastly holding to the Copyright Act.  I can
move it into another room.  I can open it.  I can read it.  I can
write in it.  I can tear pages out of it.  I can give it away to
someone else.  I can use it for research purposes.  I can quote from
it in any work of my own.  I can totally destroy it.  I can photocopy
it and put the original away for safe-keeping.  I can give away the
photocopy and destroy the original.  I can destroy the photocopy and
give away the original.  Etc., etc., etc....

In fact, this also applies to a book I might find in the dumpster.

I will wager a large sum of money that someday in the future we'll see
acceptance of the concept that one does not "copy" an electronic work
unless the "original" is used in some way contrary to the Copyright
Act.  IMHO I don't think we are very far from that day right now!

Actually, we'll have to do something about the concept of "the
original" soon, since there is no such thing with electronic
representation.  You simply cannot distinguish a copy of an electronic
work from the original.

> However, not in the case of the shareware.  Shareware places explicit
> limitations on the way you can copy the file.  In particular, it says you
> can copy it only to perform an evaluation, and that use after the evaluation
> requires a fee.

Shareware, as distributed across Usenet, cannot exist in practice,
since the "license" it is shipped with is un-enforcable.  I would say
it is even more useless than the average shrink-wrap "license", since
there is no way you can make me read the license before I read the
file in my spool directory, thus I can have (i.e. own) a copy before I
agree to the license.

> This is my understanding of the law.  Copyright law gives the copyright holder
> complete control over copying of the work, except for archival copies and
> a number of specific exemptions.   The shareware licence is indeed valid.

Yes, but absolutely *NO* control over use or location of the work.

Also, be careful when you say "complete control over copying of the
work".  What this really means is "complete control over profiting
from the work".  Once something is published, control over use or
distribution cannot be done.  (Here I mean distribution of the ideas,
etc. -- a book may pass from hand-to-hand without restriction by the
copyright holder.)
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{robohack,gate,eci386,tmsoft,ontmoh}.UUCP
+1 416 443-1734 [h]   +1 416 595-5425 [w]   VE3-TCP   Toronto, Ontario; CANADA