QNDRY1.THD --- Copyright 1989 by Phil Wheeler An original compilation of Compuserve Model 100 Forum messages for use by Forum members only. This is a very long thread, on the general topic of software copyrights, what is public domain (and not) and ethics in the area of software distribution. A number of strong views and positions are expressed; in fact this is likely the most heated THD here. Total thread is several files; see first messages in QNDRY1.THD for background. Message range: 178977 to 179048 Dates: 1/20/89 to 1/21/89 Sb: #The Quindry Affair Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: All In the November 88 and January 89 issues of Portable 100, Thomas Quindry (BASIC Bits) has stated his intent to distribute public domain and shareware program disks, which will include copyrighted programs where the author has not indicated that further distribution is not permitted. This is shaping up to become a serious violation of Copyright Law. Mr. Quindry has solicited letters of response to his stated intent, and plans to use them as article material in an upcoming column, and presumably, to shape his future plans. I have responded to his plan in a five page letter, and have uploaded a copy of that letter to Library 17 for the benefit of anyone who is interested in the questions Quindry raises. Filename is: QINDRY.LTR. Your feedback would be appreciated; both directly to Quindry (whose address appears in the file), and to me. Please advise me of your own feelings on the matter. I'll forward any feedback we generate here on to him, to let him know what the forum members feel. He's not a CompuServe subscriber. And if you feel strongly about Quindry's plans, either pro or con, I'd suggest you also write to Portable 100, and let them know. Portable 100 Letter to the Editor Box 428 Peterborough NH 03458 Or send an Email directly to Mike Nugent, Technical Editor at Portable 100; his CompuServe ID number is 71426,1201. Fm: Guerri F. Stevens 75675,1220 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 Where is he getting his programs? I take it that since he's not a member of CIS, he's not getting them here. But, just in case anyone else tries this and DOES try to get material from the DL's on CIS, is it possible to put some sort of blanket statement up that says no copyrighted material may be redistributed without the express consent of the author regardless of whether or not the author has so stated? In the absence of the ability to do that, I suppose you might ask that all future uploads contain an explicit statement to the effect that the material may or may not be copied/distributed. And authors of work currently in the DL's can revise whatever is necessary to protect their rights. I know that in the case of things I've uploaded, sometimes I say that they are free but are for the exclusive use of forum members and cannot be distributed without my consent. Have you considered bring this issue up on any of the IBM forums, or discussing it in the "back room" (if there is one) where the sysops hang out? I can see that it might easily affect other areas. Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: Guerri F. Stevens 75675,1220 He claims to download such programs from BBS's around the country, and has no information other than what is in the file that might indicate the program originated here, or that it is here with a copyright notice on it. Have you read his articles in P100? His main claim, as far as I can see, is that he is justified in downloading from anywhere, whether there is a copyright notice or not, and redistributing the programs, based on the fact that the author did not "restrict distribution" in his copyright statement. He uses the double-reverse statement "copyrighted programs where distribution has been implied to be not restricted". My viewpoint is that his interpretation would negate the whole copyright process, and ANYTHING would be fair game for copying and unauthorized distribution. Since his activities would primarily affect Model 100/102/200 users, the IBM community would not likely be interested in his activities. And other sysops would probably take a "ho-hum" attitude. We can't exert any type of "blanket copyright" over the files in the library, but CompuServe already has; they have a "compilation copyright" over everything. But if he claims he didn't get it here, that has no effect. Anyway, the law doesn't state you have restrict distribution that way, the standard copyright statement gives you full protection under Federal Law. And another point, CompuServe has already defined their position (GO COPYRIGHT), and offers little assistance to the individual authors. (In other words, don't rely on CIS to do anything about it!) My point is this, once you've complied with Federal Law, you shouldn't also have to comply with someone's bogus interpretation, in order to have complete protection against such actions. And the whole issue has just come up this week, since this week is when the current issue of P100, with his article, has been arriving to the subscribers. By the way... Nice to see you hanging around here again. Welcome back... again. Fm: Phil Wheeler 71266,125 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 As you know, my software has been a primary "target" of Thomas Quindry. After seeing the November 1988 issue of Portable 100, I mailed a letter to him and a (somewhat politer!) letter to P100. That letter was published in January, as you know -- as a counterpoint to Quindry's "Open Letter" in which he establishes his own innovative apprach to the copyright laws! In case there is some doubt, no one (including Mr. Quindry), has permission to distribute any of my software on disk, or to recieve money for a copy of said software. I have already made myself amply clear on this point ot Mr. Quindry and to the staff of Portable 100. For those who do not read Portable 100, I have uploaded a copy of my published letter to Lib 1 as PD?.LTR; if the ? does not make it, it will show up as PD.LTR, I suppose! Real title is "Public Domain?". Fm: Phil Wheeler 71266,125 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 [DOops -- make that Lib 17, if Tony will wave his magic wand and move it there. These messages, being in S 1, caused me to put the PD?.LTR in Lib 1! Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: Phil Wheeler 71266,125 Your letter gets caught in the draft... won't be available until after midnight, I'm afraid. Thanks for supplying a copy. Fm: Wilson Van Alst 76576,2735 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 I have a very simple view of this matter: if Mr. Quindry tries to distribute copies of a program I have written, I will file a complaint with the F.B.I. I will name him, and the operators of any bulletin board where he claims to have found my program, and the publishers of Model 100; and I will seek to have all of them charged with conspiracy to violate Title 17 of the United States Code. In fact, they may currently be guilty of conspiracy, since there have already been "overt acts" (such as publication of the November article soliciting for Mr. Quindry's enterprise) in furtherance of the scheme. To me, the most blameworthy players in this dirty drama are the publishers and editors of Model 100. They know the copyright laws. They know what piracy is. They know that Mr. Quindry's programs didn't fall off a cabbage truck. Did they help him write the phrase "copyrighted programs where distribution has been implied to be not restricted"? How would they feel about someone on this SIG selling diskloads of P100 articles? ("Just found 'em in the trashcan. Yassir. The G-man didn't say nothing about no restrictions." Bullpucky.) I have a feeling the people who have something to lose in this affair (Mr. Quindry probably isn't one of them) will put it to a halt. If they don't, I hope they make the mistake of picking my programs, so that I get legal standing to do something about it. Litigiously, Van Fm: Paul Globman 72227,1661 To: Wilson Van Alst 76576,2735 Van - It has always been my opinion that authors and programmers who make their work available to the public, do so in an effort to expand the usefulness of their computer. Publishers like P100 and CompuServe have self-serving reasons for insisting upon limited distribution of material they publish. Those reasons are based upon greed for consumer dollars. Since it would be impractical (if not impossible) for a software author to upload his work to every BBS, I think it would be a fairly reasonable assumption that if the author did not specify distribution restrictions, that there are no restrictions. Whereas a magazine may pay the author for publication rights, they may declare ( and usually do) restrictions on reproduction of material found within their pages. I personally cannot imagine a Model 100 (or 200) programmer who would write programs for CIS users only. I can imagine CIS attempting to put forth some rationale to promote such restrictions, but I can't imagine anyone going along with it. I'm not attempting to align myself with Mr. Quindry's interpretation of the law, but I do believe as he does regarding the _intent_ of the author who uploads his work to a public arena. Putting aside semantics and nitpicking, the survival of the M100/200 family is dependant upon the free exchange of information and noncommercial programs. I never considered "copyrighted" and "public domain" to be mutually exclusive of one another. I believe that a piece of software can be either, neither, or both. Fm: Phil Wheeler 71266,125 To: Paul Globman 72227,1661 I don't agree. You seem to take the point of view that if I don't make my intent regarding a program absolutely clear, the freebooters of the world are free to do what they want with it. Sorta like having to post a sign saying "goods stolen from this house are for free distribution, but not to be sold for profit." In fact the MODE of distribution is the issue with me: When someone takes my work, whether I have explicitely copyrighted it or not, and sells it for a profit (even if one thin dime) -- and I hear of their intent the first time in public print -- that is an immoral (at least) and possibly even illegal act. Tom Quindry claims he didn't know how to contact me. What a load of BS! I'm not exactly a private person. Nuge, perhaps others, at P100 know I hang around here. My phone number IS listed, etc. Moreover, I'm told that TQ is acquainted with Rich Hansen (Club 100) who does know where to reach me (Rich has purchased used hardware from me, and I met with him briefly last year in San Franscisco). Add to that Quindry's complete absence form M100 Forum, where most of his software comes from. It seems like coming here and finding out what the authors (not CIS!) think would have been simple prudence and courtesy. I can only conclude that the whole pattern is one of furtiveness, an attempt to avoid hearing the negative response he reasoned he would get if he asked the question. Mr. Quindry's legal position is a matter for the experts; but his moral position, and (in my mind) his claim to ethical standards, are entirely without substance. He is a blackguard, a knave of the highest order!! Fm: Guerri F. Stevens 75675,1220 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 Well, I'm not exactly "hanging around" here - I just drift in once in a while, usually when I want something! (See my Eplex to you...) I didn't read the article in P100 very thoroughly; perhaps I will. I did read Phil Wheeler's (I think it was his) letter about one of his programs. So where did Quindry get that, if not here? (I don't have my P100 handy - perhaps Q wasn't going to distribute Phil's program, but just mentioned it). I agree that the Federal law should cover the copyright issue. But what's going to happen if Quindry starts distributing stuff and someone whose copyrighted material he distributes wants to complain? If there's not a very profitable commercial venture involved, what recourse will the author have? I'm just suggesting that perhaps people submitting material here should include more extensive copyright information to doubly protect themselves. When I worked for a software company, we always inserted the statement "This program is the property of (company name). It may not be copied in whole or in part without the express written consent of (company name)". Since he can't distribute without copying, that might cover it. Or you could say "may not be copied or distributed..." Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: Guerri F. Stevens 75675,1220 I understand what you're saying about defining your disctribution or copying intentions; but the point is, that the Federal Govenment requires no such statement to have the property fully covered by copyright, and the full force of the Courts. So why should WE have to add such a statement, when we are ALREADY protected from such actions by Federal Law? Copyright = Copy Right; the right to make copies. It's the first right conferred under the law. Mr. Quindry, in copying someone else's program has violated that right. No question about "the program didn't say I couldn't copy it", he is NOT PERMITTED to copy it. End of question. Since valid copyrights cover both recovery of profits (however miniscule) AND damage{_s, one lawsuit will put Mr. Quindry so far in debt that it will stop his activities permanently. Fm: Guerri F. Stevens 75675,1220 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 You are right about damages - I was reading a section of "Legal Care for your Software" which says that statutory damages may be awarded as well as court costs even if the violator didn't profit from the copying. But how would a person do this? Sue the violator? As I understand it, a crime has been committed, just as if someone breaks into your house and walks off with the TV. In the latter case it is a little more clear cut, and you just call the police. But what about copyright violation? I'd guess you'd have to sue, which could be time consuming and costly. You'd want not only to recover the court and attorney's costs, but something extra for the time you put in on the suit. I can't find my latest P100 to read Quindry's response, but I did locate the Nov. issue. It seems that he's violated Phil's copyright already, if he's distributed that program. And what about the portions contributed by James Yi and the others? It seems to me that as Phil has complained to P100, they should have taken action! Fm: Phil Wheeler 71266,125 To: Guerri F. Stevens 75675,1220 I suspect he got it from the Club 100 system; they manage to put a lot of the stuff here in there collection. But it really does not matter where he got it. HIs rights (or lack thereof) are unaffected in my mind. If I find a book laying in the street, I may be able to sell that copy -- but I don't think that would allow me to make 10 copies and charge (even a dime) for them; might get away with it, but it wouldn't be legal. On "where he got it": If someone got it here and uploaded it to Joe's BBS (this is the unknown Joe!) -- or even if I uploaded it to Joe's BBS -No one is going to complain if someone else, including TQ, downloads it for personal use. But selling it en masse is another matter entirely. Consider Powr_DOS, available here. Let's say somebody uploads it to a BBS in NYC, and TQ calls that BBS and downloads it. Can he now sell it by his distribution scheme? NO -- and I doubt if he would try, since Powr-DOS is a know commercial product. Now consider XMDPW5. Because it is NOT a commercial product, is it less protected? NO! The fact that the author is not selling it does not mean someone else can step in and fill the breach. The bizarre thing is that, even after I have specifically and explicitely told Mr. Quindry not to sell my programs, he still seems to contend that he has a right to -- apparently because he found them on a puublic domain BBS. Gee -- if I upload dBase III to his favorite BBS, maybe he will put that on the market, too. Seems to follow, logically -- though his risk would be about 10 orders of magnitude higher (Ashton-Tate sues!). Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: Guerri F. Stevens 75675,1220 Well, the points you raise are valid concerns, and it's one reason I've reacted to his January column, which indicates he's now going to go after stuff with copyrights plainly stated, if they don't include a distribution restriction. Have you read my letter to him? QINDRY.LTR in Library 17. Fm: Wilson Van Alst 76576,2735 To: Paul Globman 72227,1661 Fortunately, copyright law is less fuzzy than your "either, neither, or both" analysis of this issue. Why do you suppose someone puts a copyright notice on a piece of software? Because it looks cute? The notice is a clear statement that an author claims proprietary interests in a program, including the manner and means of its distribution (since distribution necessarily involves making copies). If the author doesn't care to make that claim, he/she can omit the copyright notice -- but if it is present, it means what it (and the law) says. You can't imagine that someone would write programs only for distribution on CIS? Well, I've seen plenty of material here that includes (legally superfluous) language like "for personal use of forum members only." I can think of several reasons for wanting to centralize access to a program: -- it gives the author a way to measure interest in the software; -- it provides a channel for adequately supporting the program; -- it allows feedback, both from users and from other programmers, that can help improve the program. Mr. Quindry's slimy scheme offers none of these benefits. And in my mind it does nothing to enhance the survival of M100-class computers. By serving notice that "you write for my profit", Mr. Quindry is far more likely to dry up the supply of accessible software than to contribute to it. Fm: Wilson Van Alst 76576,2735 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 Let's not forget that Mr. Quindry has a very active complicitor in his scuzzy little venture: Portable 100 Magazine. Unless the publishers make some immediate moves to distance themselves from this scheme, they are likely to be the "deep pocket" defendants when it comes time to look for damages. Imagine all the sympathy a jury would feel for a magazine publisher on the witness stand, as he tries to explain his role in a copyright violation. Fm: GERALD LINDSAY 73717,2710 To: Wilson Van Alst 76576,2735 I'm afraid I have some misgivings about some of your arguements concerning the copyrighted M100 programs. What you consider superfluous remarks concerning for personal use of forum members only, would to my mind and I suspect a jury (which I doubt would ever hear the case), be of paramount inportance. Since the programs are being placed in the download directories by CIS or their assigns (sysops), and contain a copyright notice (not a distribution notice mind you), they are just as guilty as Mr Quindry, and should be looked upon as accessories. Otherwise the method of distribution is implied by past practice. You can't have it both ways. I have conversed with Mr Quindry by phone, and BBS, and find he is not the ogre he is being made out to be. This is a subject that needs to be discussed, but with full realisation that it is a muddy area. I seem to recall a while ago, CIS considered that it owned all the rights to the programs here and not the authors. If an author does not want his program to be distributed past this forum, he should make his wishes known, since established practice has made this unclear. Phil Wheeler has made his position clear, and I'm sure he has uploaded new software with the needed warnings included. I suggest anyone else concerned about this do the same. It does the forum or the M100 community at large little good if the sources of software dry up, no software, no sales of 102s, no 102s, no forum. I would also suggest that the concerned authors log on to the Laptops Conference on Genie, and checkout the Club 100 files, I think you'll find more to concern yourselves there, than with Mr Quindry. Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: GERALD LINDSAY 73717,2710 I'm afraid you have a few things incorrectly seated in your mind, yourself, Gerald. First off, The Model 100 Forum is not run, or owned by CompuServe. It is a private business, provided to CompuServe by Golden Triangle Corporation in Texas. CompuServe is the carrier, not the operation itself. As a "sysop", I am not an "assign", and receive no financial benefits from CompuServe. Files are not placed in the libraries by CompuServe or the sysops; they are uploaded by the members of the forum; the authors of the programs. It is they who indicate a copyright status on the programs, not us, and certainly not CompuServe. CompuServe NEVER claimed they owned the programs in the libraries; that is a fabrication that has been passed around until it seems like truth. In fact, they have repeatedly stated that they have no claims which superceed those of the programs authors. GO COPYRIGHT will give you CompuServe's side of the story. CompuServe does claim a "Compilation Copyright" the same as a newspaper does on everything it contains. That is a whole different type of copyright, and gives the service no rights over individual files, just as a local newspaper has no rights over the stories it carries from various news services. I don't see why I should have to put a statement in a program restricting distribution, when the copyright itself does that, under Federal Law. That doesn't make any sense. Either I HAVE a copyright, or I don't. "Tradition" doesn't alter the Law. Fm: Paul Globman 72227,1661 To: Phil Wheeler 71266,125 Phil - You have taken my view to an extreme that I too would not agree with. I do =NOT= feel "... the freebooters of the world are free to do what they want with it." And I especially would object to the selling of the software. I can see no objection to the passing of a program from one user to another, as it appears that was the original intent of the author. Part of the success of this forum is the accumulation of programs for the M100 concentrated in one area. We pay CIS a service fee for being here. If some enterprising individual wants to give away files in a new format to a user base that CIS doesn't reach, I see no basis for complaint. If there's a fee to cover the cost of the disk/cassette and shipping/handling I don't see much of a problem. I don't hear much complaint about the money that CIS makes on user time spent downloading. Do ya think CIS would suspend connect charges when downloading my programs (if I so specified)? Haha! I think that distribution =is= the issue here, and some will view the selling of a diskfull of CIS files for a fixed fee as "service fee" for making the material available. You must view that same situation as the "selling" of the material on the disk. There is a vast user base to be reached (outside of CIS) and I dont' see why you would discourage alternative ways to reach them.