QNDRY5.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: 179383 to 179973 Dates: 2/1/89 to 2/18/89 Sb: The Quindry Affair Fm: Paul Globman 72227,1661 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 Well you have some very unique views as to what profit is. If it's what's left over after all costs and labor expenses, then we might agree. In your example you underestimated costs and left out labor expenses. Whatever he pays himself for the menial labor of getting the mail, making the disk, mailing the disk, etc, you would call profit. I say the profit is what's left over after he pays himself for his labor (a perfectly legitimate expense to deduct before PROFITS are determined). Semantics, I say, but that would be the only way you can make THAT point. Fm: Stan Wong 70346,1267 To: John Frost 72571,112 Thanks for jumping into the thread and letting us know how you feel. Too many people sit on the sidelines and just watch the message traffic go by while the old-timers here vent some steam. There seems to be two main issues here which I think some people are getting confused. One is the merits of what Mr. Quindry is trying to do. The main issue is HOW he going about doing it. Whether or not people agree with what Mr. Quindry is trying to do HOW he is doing it is clearly illegal. If he had only bothered to contact the authors and ask permission everything would be okay. People can rant and rave about what he is doing is (noble/unethical - pick one) but not illegal. Fm: Paul Globman 72227,1661 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 The man has stated that these files were from CLUB 100, and the fact that they may also be on CIS doesn't mean they are CIS files, unless you can prove that the copies from CLUB 100 are illegally available on CLUB 100. Fm: Paul Globman 72227,1661 To: Phil Wheeler 71266,125 What point were you making when you commented "...Naturally, since (it seems) Tom did not decide that your stuff was salable enough..."? And what stuff do refer to? That which was published in Portable 100 already has restrictions printed on page 3, so if Quindry doesn't take files from CIS then he has no way to obtain any of my work. BTW, Portable 100 thinks my stuff is salable and sells a disks with T200 stuff on it (that could be downloaded from CIS). I don't think it's that big of a deal, but since you made a point of mentioning how "(it seems)" to you, I thought I'd counter that point and say my stuff is quite salable. Sorry, I don't do application programming. I mean, I do it, but I don't like it. I do more than enough application stuff for other people/ computers. My satisfaction with the M200 is derived by making them do the things that were overlooked at the design level. I really don't care who gets my stuff. I'll respond to querries about my programs regardless of how the user obtained his copy. If I could upload my stuff to every BBS with just one call, I would. Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: Paul Globman 72227,1661 Afraid the IRS disagrees with that definition. A self-employed person is not allowed to "pay himself labor", whatever is left over after expenses is considered profit, and is the basis upon which the individual is taxed. See tax manuals and Schedule "C" of the standard tax forms. Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: Paul Globman 72227,1661 Well, that's another point, and a separate issue. But in his January article, Quindry discussed files on CompuServe, with reference to his unique definition of "implied consent". Fact is, many of Club 100's files originated here, and we just haven't audited his library to see how many there are, and whether the Club 100 library includes files which were not authorized to be there by the authors. One of our early members was also very active in setting up and supporting the Club 100 BBS - Bill Templeton. He may have been involved in porting files over to that system, and may have contacted various authors here to obtain permission. We know of at least a couple of files that made it the other way... Club 100 to CompuServe. We can't really question files that were written by others, only on a personal basis. So I couldn't question any of Stan Wong's files being there... he might have extended permission; but I _could_ question any of MY files being there. So far, I've had no reports of that being the case, and hate to open a can of worms by going in and looking myself. But obviously, Club 100 has a copy of Phil's XMDPW5, without his permission. Personally, I can't understand sysop's allowing people to upload files to their BBS without an indication that it's their own work. I mean, if I were running a BBS, and Joe Blow uploaded a program with Phil Wheeler's name on it, I'd check with Joe to find out what the status of the program was, before I made it available. We've had cases of folks uploading programs here like that, even copying programs out of magazines and books. As far as we know, none of them have ever made it into the library. Except as may be noted in individual files, they are all original work. Fm: Mike Nugent (TMN East) 71426,1201 To: Mike Nugent (TMN East) 71426,1201 For a plain English treatment of copyrights, I recommend "The Beginning Creator's Copyright Manual," by H.P. Killough, J.D. (Harlo Press). Copyright 1988, so it's current. Some excerpts might be of interest here. Rectangular brackets refer to sections of Title 17 of the United States Code. "Registration of your copyright is a requirement for maintaining an action in federal court for violation of your copyright, or infringement. [205(d)] Registration, as well, of any document filed and identified with it is a matter of constructive notice to all persons. [205(c)] "The certificate of registration issued by the Register of Copyrights, if the registration is made within five years of the first publication, is prima facie evidence, or nearly absolute proof of the statements made in the certificate. Any registration made more than five years after the first publication will have its convincing effect as evidence left up to the court. [410(c)] In fact, you can not even file an action in court against someone who is violating your copyright unless you have first registered the copyright. [411(a)] "The law will not allow you to recover any statutory damage or recovery of attorney fees if the infringing act, or acts, were started before the copyright was registered. If, however, the act(s) that violated your copyright started before you registered your copyright, the court can award you only the actual damages and profits the violator made, that you can prove. [412]" "In the case that the violating acts began after you have registered your copyright, you can choose between actual damages and statutory ones. This means that you may receive statutory damages even though you can not prove real loss, just the violation. The court may grant from $250 to $10,000 in statutory damages. If you chose to, and can prove the violation was willful, the court may raise the maximum to $50,000. If, however, you try but are not able to prove willfulness in the violation, the court may drop the minimum to $100. [504] "A willful violation of a person's copyright for commercial gain is also a criminal offense for which the law provides up to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. [506]" For anyone interested in the subject, this book is a good starting place. For those who are truly *serious* about their copyrights, don't hesitate to check it out. Fm: GERALD LINDSAY 73717,2710 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 I'm sorry, I promised myself I wouldn't get back into this, but your statement that "I can't understand sysop's allowing people to upload files to their BBS without an indication that it's their work" just couldn't pass without comment. Is this the only BBS that you've been on, or do you only frequent subscription BBSs? MOST BBS Sysops REQUIRE that you upload programs to maintain access, they examine them for a COPYRIGHT NOTICE, if none exists or the docs maintain its PD or shareware it is placed on the board, an authors name is not a copyright notice, despite intent. The Sysops want files from any author and don't care if the uploader is the author, if you check the files in the other forums you'll find that the uploaders not necessarily the authors here on CIS either. Apparently you have a problem with the other Sysops here on CIS as well. Go get them! Fm: John Frost 72571,112 To: Stan Wong 70346,1267 Stan, Thanks. Based on my limited knowledge I think your correct. I think what gets me frustrated with the situations like this issue is the lack of ethics and of respect for others, which usually is what ends up creating more laws. Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: GERALD LINDSAY 73717,2710 This is the only forum or BBS I have time for, since it consumes upwards of 40 hours per week. And I can't speak for how other CIS sysops run their businesses; technically, each forum is a separate "business", and is managed, given certain guidelines, however the contract holder feels is best for the community he serves. If they feel it's best to accept programs and files without them being the original work of the uploader, then that's how they operate. They also have to accept the responsibility for those actions if anything is ever questioned. I believe we've been a bit more careful. Fm: Phil Wheeler 71266,125 To: GERALD LINDSAY 73717,2710 The IBM parts of CIS are very sensitive to this issue. They regularly regect questionable material -- including one of my programs which was extensive mod of something published in PC Magazine. It seems THOSE Sysops have a very rigorous and well-policed policy. Natually things will slip by, but the intent is sure there. Fm: Wilson Van Alst 76576,2735 To: Mike Nugent (TMN East) 71426,1201 Hadn't seen that book. Thanks for the reference. I'd also recommend a volume called "Legal Care for Your Software", by Daniel Remer. Nolo Press, 950 Parker St., Berkeley, CA 94710. Published in 1982 and updated in '84 (and possibly since then). It's written for non-lawyers, and covers a lot of turf. Aside from copyright issues, the book discusses trade secret doctrine, author/developer/ publisher contracts, patents, and trademarks; and it includes some do-ityourself examples of non-disclosure and licensing agreements. Fm: BRUCE BATES 73007,2044 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 A little problem with putting the onus on the BBS sysop is that you assume he/she can "read" the uploaded program to inspect it for a Copyright message and/or authors name. A simple case where this can not be done is if a BBS operater runs a non-MS/DOS BBS system and Arced programs are uploaded. Not a chance of finding anything readable inside those programs. I speak from experience as a former non-MS/DOS sysop. I just had to rely on others in that case who would voluntarily download the programs (when they got the chance) and check them out for me, and report back (if the remembered to). Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: BRUCE BATES 73007,2044 Well, I feel it's the sysop's responsibility to know what's in his library, and if I were running a BBS, and couldn't de-arc files, I wouldn't allow them to be published until I had seen what was in them. Could be a lot of legal problems caused by such a file. Fm: Mike Nugent (TMN East) 71426,1201 To: Wilson Van Alst 76576,2735 Yeah, that one (Legal Care...) was a good one, going into much more depth than the one I mentioned. I doubt you'll find much new material there, but it is written in simple terms for those who are just getting their feet wet. It covers a few specifics for traditional artists, composers, video game authors, and a few other things. Might wanna take a peek at it first, maybe at a library, before deciding if you wanna spend the bucks. But it's definitely worth a look. Fm: BRUCE BATES 73007,2044 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 Quite true ... Some even end up shutting down their BBS systems rather than have to deal with that problem. That was the choice I was forced to make. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness .. hummm and I can't even enjoy a hobby because of someone else wrong doings. Something definitely wrong with this whole system .. Nuf said by me. Fm: RANDY HESS 73267,552 To: ALL All, "The Quindry affair" has attracted a lot of comment and opinion. For interested parties the following area in Compuserve seems applicable. From the TOP menu (GO TOP) choose item 1, then choose item 10. The information excerpted here is from that area and seems clear. CompuServe RUL-50 1 Rules of Operation 2 Copyright Policy 3 Service Agreement Terms 4 Business Account Service Agreement Terms #3 CompuServe RUL-30 The CompuServe Information Service provides access to more than 1200 online products covering thousands of subject areas to its more than 400,000 subscribers. Material offered on the CompuServe Information Service originates with a wide variety of sources, ranging from creative public domain software programs uploaded by subscribers to multi-faceted databases provided by large corporations. The following information will address some commonly-asked questions about copyright and ownership of material, particularly as it relates to public domain information and shareware programs. CompuServe RUL-4 COPYRIGHT/OWNERSHIP 1 Compilation Copyright 2 Ownership of Information 3 Copyrighted, Public Domain and Shareware Programs 4 Download For Personal Use 5 Redistribution of Information 6 Commercial Use/Redistribution 7 Penalty for Violations #6 CompuServe RUL-12 --MAY I DOWNLOAD AND RESELL A PROGRAM FROM A COMPUSERVE FORUM DATA LIBRARY? Commercial exploitation of material contained on the CompuServe Information Service is specifically prohibited by the CompuServe Service agreement, to which each subscriber agrees before being permitted to access the Service. Therefore, subscribers cannot lawfully download and redistribute public information or shareware programs for personal gain. In addition, mass redistribution of public domain information or shareware is also prohibited. Mass distribution is defined as high frequency and/or high volume transfers. CompuServe RUL-31 WHAT IS COMPUSERVE'S STANCE TOWARD COPYRIGHTED, PUBLIC DOMAIN, AND SHAREWARE PROGRAMS? Each of these types of property have special characteristics, and deserves separate explanation: COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL CompuServe does not allow copyrighted material to be placed on the CompuServe Information Service without the author's permission. Only the owner(s) or persons they specifically authorize may upload copyrighted material to the Service. Any subscriber may download copyrighted material for their own use. Any subscriber may also non-commercially redistribute a copyrighted program with the expressed permission of the owner or authorized person. Permission must be specified in the document, on the Service, or must be obtained directly from the author. See menu choices 5,6 and 7 for more information about redistribution guidelines. PUBLIC DOMAIN Any subscriber may upload public domain programs to the Service. Any subscriber may download public domain programs for their own use or non-commercially redistribute a public domain program. See menu choices 5,6, and 7 for more information about redistribution guidelines. SHAREWARE Only the owner or an authorized person may upload shareware programs. Any subscriber may download shareware programs for their own use, subject to the terms provided by the owner. Any subscriber may non-commercially redistribute a shareware program subject to the provided terms explicitly displayed in the software itself, or with permission of the owner or authorized person. See menu choices 5,6 and 7 for more information about redistribution guidelines. -----Although these rules may have been referenced in previous messages, I thought they were worth seeing in full. Fm: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 To: RANDY HESS 73267,552 Randy, thanks for going and getting that, and uploading the pertinent sections. We often forget that information is spelled out in detail. Problem is, Quindry is not a CompuServe member, and claims he gets his programs from private BBS's, which make no mention that the program may have originated here. We may have some additional feedback, from Quindry himself, over the weekend. ... stay tuned. Fm: RANDY HESS 73267,552 To: Tony Anderson 76703,4062 Seems to me that the copyright laws are clear: HE, as the distributor, bears the ultimate responsibility for his distribution ' of copyright material, REGARDLESS of his source. The courts have made it quite clear that distributors of copyright material have the same obligation to the author whether the author is aware of mthe matter or not. Permission to distribute lies with the AUTHOR, NOT the distributor. I agree with you entirely; AND SO DOES THE LAW! Fm: Bob Getsla 72536,213 To: John Frost 72571,112 John, I have just started reading the thread of this today, and obviosly have not been here from the beginning, nor have I seen or read anything about the disk(s) in question. My M100 does not even have a disk drive. Regarding the legal issue, I don't think we need more laws, nor do we need more vigorous statements regarding copyrights buried inside a program. The real issue seems to be ethics and from what I have read up to here, Mr. Quindry has a problem with ethics, or the lack thereof. I am not a software writer, but perhaps some day I will be in the class Van is. I am certainly concerned about theft of intellectual property and I think there is probably enough law present already. I am conerned about the consequences of getting the politicians into the act. When you ask for more laws, it is the politicians who get elected that do the writing of the law. I would hate to see things go from bad to worse by the actions of an ill-informed politician who listened to the advice of someone with less than full understanding of the problem themselves. Political advisors may well be good for getting (re)elected, but they may not be very good for protecting the work of professional or amateur writers. I am afraid that we could end up with laws that do not protect, or maybe we could end up with a "marketplace" decision like the one we have regarding AM Stereo. Regulation and law enforcement are issues that seem to out of vogue these days, unless narcotics are involved, or as I see now with the NRA, assault weapons. I have no good answers, but I am not sure the politicians do, either.