Charging the net....

[Terry Poot]

[Lordy, lordy, not again. PLEASE don't start the shareware flames in
news.admin. I'm directing followups to alt.sources.d. I'm sure they don't
want it either, but it fits there better than here, and he did post it to
alt.sources.]

In article <1566 at tronsbox.xei.com>, tron1 at tronsbox.xei.com (Kenneth
Jamieson) writes:
>	Hmm.. this is an interesting question ...
>
>	I posted a shareware program to alt.sources, and as a result
>recieved the following letter :
>...
>I have noticed that you sent a commercial message through this system.
>...
>51 kilobytes of information.  The minimum fee for the storage of this
>object is
>
>	51 * .10 * 13 = US$66.30
>...
>This letter is not a joke.
>
>I replied:
>
>	Fat chance. Have fun and try whatever you wish, until there is a
>legal judgment to the above effect, any use by you that does not comply
>with
>the term os the shareware agreement will be held as a violation of the
>US copyright code. 
>
>	If you wish to pursue this matter, feel free.
>
>	I did not request you or your company to store, forward or provide
>any service whatever, and , much like the mail order system, you cannot
>charge
>for a unrequested service or product.

He's as right as you are (or as wrong). I don't think he can force you to
pay. On the other hand, your so-called license is meaningless. (I guess you
thought my email telling you I thought your terms statement was a good joke.
I guess you didn't get it.)

Copyright controls who may copy the file. You give explicit permission to
anyone to copy it unmodified, and actually request them to do so. That is
the only part copyright has to play. Asking me not to use it unless I pay
is a request with no legal force. I didn't ask for this, and I didn't agree
to the terms. I do have a legal copy. Since I own my copy, I can do what
I want with it, within the bounds of copyright law, which basically keeps
me from selling it.

Shrink-wrap licenses are considered questionable by some, but your notice
has less force. With a shrink-wrap license, it states that by opening the
package you agree to the license. Thus the user has to do something that
indicates agreement with the license (whether that would hold in court
is another debate, please don't address it here). With your software, I had
to do nothing to receive the code. I didn't agree to anything, and you gave
it to me anyway. I'm no lawyer, but I'll bet you couldn't sue me for
violating your license (your copyright is another matter entirely; as I
said in you email, it looked valid and will be respected).

Yes, shareware is posted to the net, (though I don't think any of the
comp.sources groups still take it), but that doesn't mean that everyone
thinks that shareware restrictions in software posted to the net have any
meaning. I don't. I'm not likely to pay for such software. As far as I'm
concerned, it is like you sending me a present in the mail, with a bill
attached. I never asked for the present, but that doesn't mean I'll
return it. US law says I can keep it (or so I hear) and you can't charge me
for it. email doesn't get the same coverage by law (yet, go EFF!), but I
think of them that way.

BTW, I'm much more likely to pay for software that requests a contribution
IF I find the software useful. This is the proper way to give away software
and get money for it. (The other way is to sell adjunct products, like
support, nice docs, etc.)
--
Terry Poot <tp at mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!deimos!mccall!tp) 615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA