From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 20 Jul 92 19:35:52 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <23244@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.UUCP (jj, old grump curmudgeon) wrote:
> In article <mwm.17wz@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
> >We know that a service that sells a UUCP feed that charges by the byte
> >and includes USENET services isn't "pay-for-read".
> Right.  They aren't charging for "information"
> 
> >We know that a flat-rate netnews feed isn't "pay-for-read".
> I have no idea how you know that.  Proceed at your own
> risk.  There was one example introduced where it was clear
> that the feed wasn't even clearing average costs as compared
> to e-mail, but you should't feel free to generalize.

In other words, this sounds like the "no for-profit redistribution".
But the first case does exactly that.

> >I therefore assume that combinations of the two - a subscription fee
> >plus per byte charges - isn't "pay-for-read".
> How do you know?  You consistantly have ignored the concept
> of paying for the INFORMATION, rather than the computer
> service.

There's a good reason for that - your copyright doesn't protect the
information content of your articles. Likewise, what some consider
information, others consider gibberish, which makes it hard to use
such as a criteria, except maybe for judging advertising propoganda.

> >If the above are true, then the distribution media seems immaterial, so
> >a flat-rate or per gigabyte distribution on CD-ROM shouldn't be
> >"pay-for-read".
> Unless the person selling the CD sells it at a premium because
> it's NUTNOISE, err, netnews.

That's somewhat confusing. If I normally charge $X for a CD, and
charge the same for a netnoise CD, you have no problems with that?
Even if $X represents a *large* profit for me? BTW, this also
illustrates why the "information" criteria doesn't work - the contents
didn't change, just the cost.

> >Hmm - maybe it's the charging mechanism. Would a "feed" that charged
> >for communications on a "per-article" basis be "pay-for-read"?
> Would it charge more for a netnews article, or for netnews articles
> by some authors, than it might charge for something else?  Somehow,
> I doubt this, strictly based on volume.

So we now have two unanswered questions instead of one. Which of those
do you call "pay-for-read" (I think they *both* fit that term, but I'm
not the one putting that in the restrictions in my copyright notices)?

> >So, jj - you want to tell us what _would_ be a violation of your
> >copyright? And are you willing to prosocute if we name companies that
> >are doing that?
> I'm not sure why you are attacking me so deliberately. 

I can see why you consider asking whether you would prosecute as being
an attack; the question came out of idel curiosity, and I'll withdraw
it. I also apologize for making you feel attacked.

On the other hand, I can't see that trying to clarify the vagueness in
what your copyright allows vs. doesn't allow is an attack, unless you
cherish that vagueness.

> You deliberately ignore the sixtifour of the discussion, 
> only to attack some poor soul who only wants to keep others
> from propagating his articles beyond nutnoise.  Why?  What's
> your problem?  Why are you deliberately harrassing me and
> trying cause me damage?   Why are you trying to break my copyright?
> Why are you trying to be the proximate cause?  Why, in heaven's
> name, would YOU want to be in such vulnerable position?

What's YOUR problem? Why do you think I'm trying to break your
copyright or cause you damage? If that was what I wanted to do, it'd
be easy. I'm trying to clarify things. If you believe clarifying
things causes you damage, I can only pity you.

> I'm only going to say what I said before:

I have *not* seen this before.

> "Pay for read" means that somebody is charging for the information
> content, as opposed to charging for the computer usage, costs,
> etc.  If, to use an example that has happened, somebody took an article
> of mine and printed it in an audio magazine, that would violate
> my copyright.   If someone were to make a compilation of 
> "jj's articles" <YHWH knows WHY someone would, this is hypothetical>
> and sell it as "jj's articles", yes, that would be a violation.

Of course, it doesn't clarify things - at least, not much.

For example, since you focus on cost (starting with the word "pay"), I
would assume that anything that was free wouldn't be a violation.
Say, for instance, a magazine/newsletter that I publish and give, or
that someone else publishes and gives away, and I don't get paid for.
But from your comment above, that's not clear at all.

> Someone charging people to USE THEIR COMPUTER or their communications
> mechanism isn't charging for information.

Which only excludes the per-byte charges, which you have already
explicitly excluded. It would also appear to exclude higher per-byte
charges for netnews, if the grounds for the charges were that netnews
is a higher load on the system (this, would exclude netnews that came
from an off-site news->mail gateway). But that sounds like charging a
premium for netnews, which you explictly stated *wasn't* ok.

Since you ignored the interesting hypothetical case, let's try another
one:

I set up a machine with a full feed, and use a modified version of
"newsclip" (recently posted to comp.lang.perl) to select articles for
mail to people. I charge them a flat monthly fee (for leaving newsclip
running), and per-byte charges on top of that. This sounds like a "use
of my machine etc" case, and so would be ok. But a subscriber could
provide themselves with "jj's articles" with that mechanism. As far as
I'm concerned, I'm not selling information - I'm selling a more
selective netnoise feed. The person on the other end may think they're
getting information, but I know they're getting netnoise. Am I
violating your copyright? Does it depend on what I charge? And if the
latter, how do I figure out what the case is?

	<mike

Newsgroups: news.admin