From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 16:43:45 GMT

In article <EeRzv7i00awJQ8UvA4@andrew.cmu.edu> pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter Glen Berger) writes:
>A question for all of you out there who are (very cavalierly, I think)
>claiming that any post on the net which follows "normal usenet
>distribution patterns" is in the public domain:

Actually, I think there are three (maybe more) positions that are
being promoted:

1. Posting to the network puts the post in "public domain."

2. Posting to the network does not eliminate your copyright, BUT
   does grant an implied permission to copy almost anywhere by
   almost any method (I fall in this camp).

3. Posting to the network retains copyright and the network should
   honor/accomodate/etc. any distribution constraints a poster may
   include AND if the network does not, then there is copyright
   infringement.  (I think that position would not be sustained
   if it ever got to a court case.)

>Are all of the "shareware" programs that are on the net now "public
>domain?"

Might be, has this ever been tested in a court case?

>If so, than "shareware" really is "free".  Now, last I
>understood, using a shareware program without paying the author the
>requested fee within a reasonable amount of time was a violation of
>copyright.

Again, without a court case there's only opinion.  I personally
doubt that a court would consider my using a shareware program 
without paying a fee to the author as a violation.  The author 
distributes shareware with the "hope" that some folks will pay for
it if they like it.  Shareware isn't any diferent than if an author
freely distributes 100s of copies of a book and includes a statement
that if you read the book please send $x to me.  Do you think
the author would have a case against someone that read the book
without paying?  Not likely, the author gave away the books, the
act of reading (as is the act of using the software) is not what
copyright protects.  My understanding is that copyright protects
against unauthorized copying and the shareware program was freely
given away.  If I have a shareware program, whether I use it or
not, I'm not in any copyright violation since the author intended
me (and everyone else) to get the copy for free.   So my guess
is that a court would not find a copyright violation by an individual
that used shareware without paying the author his requested fee.

>  If, however, by distributing such programs on Usenet (say,
>through comp.mac.binaries or somesuch group), these programs are
>converted to public domain, than the authors have no legal recourse,
>and have sacrificed their copyright.  Probably completely
>unintentionally.

See my previous comments.  I don't believe they necessarily are
public domain, but I really don't think an author could
successfully persue a copyright violation against
an individual that used the shareware without
paying for it.

>In addition, please realize that there is no principled difference,
>from the perspective of copyright law, between an extremely long
>shareware program and one of jj's or mine, or anyone's posts (unless
>the post consisted of only one or two words, or something similar).
>If you can see such a difference, please enlighten me.

Actually, I suspect the nature of most posts, being only a few hundred
words or less, there probably is a recognized difference in the eyes
of the law.  I'll let some more knowledgeable individual respond,
but I have a vague recollection that there have been cases where
the author claimed too much of a work was reproduced (eg. as part
of a review or discussion) and that the case law resulting may 
have some definable limits (eg. 500 words or so). associated with
fair use.  Anyone else that can help in this regard, please do.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian