the ultimate IF archive
M Burnham
Hey all,
I'm dead new to IF, and I guess I'm at that stage where I'm trying to
find and solve the best of the best, and examining heaps of different
titles. Though, as I was painstakinly grabbing some from the
ifarchive, I was wondering if there was an easier solution... Like all
IF ever created (or at least the decent titles), crammed onto a CD,
which is full of files and interpreters. It would be possible to do
so, wouldnt it? Has this been attempted already?
If not, would anyone reccommend me rigging up my downloader for a few
days and combing to get as many titles as i can to burn a CD myself? I
could offer it for free to anyone who sends me a blank CD, and I'd
fill it up for them. A feasible idea?
Matt
Jim Aikin
>
> If not, would anyone reccommend me rigging up my downloader for a few
> days and combing to get as many titles as i can to burn a CD myself? I
> could offer it for free to anyone who sends me a blank CD, and I'd
> fill it up for them. A feasible idea?
It's a dandy idea, IMO, provided you're planning to give away the CDs.
The moment you start charging, even for shipping and handling, questions
arise as to whether you have the right to charge for someone else's
copyrighted work. I'm not a copyright attorney, but such a project would
make me a little nervous.
At the very least, you'd be well advised to contact each author and get
written permission. In the interest of common courtesy, if for no other
reason.
--Jim Aikin
David A. Cornelson
news:3c5140ae...@news.hotkey.net.au...
>
> If not, would anyone reccommend me rigging up my downloader for a few
> days and combing to get as many titles as i can to burn a CD myself? I
> could offer it for free to anyone who sends me a blank CD, and I'd
> fill it up for them. A feasible idea?
CD burners are a dime a dozen these days. If someone wants IF on a CD they
likely can do it themselves.
But to your question. Yes, it has been discussed...to death. There are too
many authors that wish to retain some semblance of control over their works,
even though they're free and on the if-archive.
It's a seemingly good idea. But really. You should run away from it very
fast. You're only asking for humongous headaches. Just play the games and
don't worry so much over how other people get their hands on them. The best
thing you could do is spread the word.
Jarb
kodrik
> The moment you start charging, even for shipping and handling, questions
> arise as to whether you have the right to charge for someone else's
> copyrighted work. I'm not a copyright attorney, but such a project would
> make me a little nervous.
If an author uploads his files to the archive, he makes those files
readily available to the public and it's then covered by the first
amendement.
He retains the copyright but gave up his right to control
distribution.
I've been told many times how protective and closed this group is but
so far I've dealt mostly with helpful people whose attitude is similar
to the Linux and open source community.
If I write some piece of code, I have a choice to charge for it or
give it for free. If I give it for free and Red Hat decides to put it
on their CD and makes money off it or download.com sells advertising
while downloading my product, I will be happy for them.
As an author, you make a decision as to whether you are giving your
game or selling it, once you've made this decision you have to assume
it and not be jaleous of other people's action.
I think authors will be happy if their freely-available games were
distributed on other medium as well as downloadable. I don't think
anyone would be jaleous if you charged a little either (just like
Linux distros companies).
You are not selling their work, it is available for free, you are
charging for your expenses and time. Just be sure all products on the
CD are available through the archive.
> At the very least, you'd be well advised to contact each author and get
> written permission. In the interest of common courtesy, if for no other
> reason.
From my short ecperience, this bad group rep is just a rumor and I've
experienced quite the contrary. Is there any author here that has a
problem in their freely available adventure to be also available on a
CD format, and that some guy doesn't bear the cost of getting your
game to a player?
kodrik
> likely can do it themselves.
Yes, but if they are no a modem downloading their games at 2k/sec it
can take a while to get yorugame.
What if you want to play them from work, go to a friends house and
play and don't have a burner?
Most people fit this category, and it's not fair not to make it easily
accessible for all.
> But to your question. Yes, it has been discussed...to death. There are too
> many authors that wish to retain some semblance of control over their works,
> even though they're free and on the if-archive.
If they want control, they shoudn't put it on the archive. They should
offer it for download themselves with a license aggrement previous to
the download.
Once you release it toi the public, you can't say "only people with
internet access can get my game", not any more can you say "ony people
over 6ft. can play it". It is unethical and cannot be enforced
legally.
> It's a seemingly good idea. But really. You should run away from it very
> fast. You're only asking for humongous headaches. Just play the games and
> don't worry so much over how other people get their hands on them. The best
> thing you could do is spread the word.
Why run away from it? The complete archive should be put on CD and
people should be able to order it. There is no logical reason for it
not to be.
Someone with the archive should do it.
David A. Cornelson
news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > CD burners are a dime a dozen these days. If someone wants IF on a CD
they
> > likely can do it themselves.
>
> Yes, but if they are no a modem downloading their games at 2k/sec it
> can take a while to get yorugame.
Many games _do_ have licenses associated within. It's no different than
downloading a redhat distro and trying to make your own CD's and selling it.
It's protected software. It's free, but protected.
And yes there is seemingly no reason not to do this other than the fact that
the community, as a whole, as been against it. You'd be pissing a lot of
authors off if you did this.
Jarb
Andrew Plotkin
>> It's a dandy idea, IMO, provided you're planning to give away the CDs.
>> The moment you start charging, even for shipping and handling, questions
>> arise as to whether you have the right to charge for someone else's
>> copyrighted work. I'm not a copyright attorney, but such a project would
>> make me a little nervous.
> If an author uploads his files to the archive, he makes those files
> readily available to the public and it's then covered by the first
> amendement.
> He retains the copyright but gave up his right to control
> distribution.
This is a lovely assumption, but it is not in any way supported by
actual law.
Many of the games, programs, articles, and other works on the IF
Archive have a copyright notice that states exactly how the work can
be distributed. Anyone is welcome to go through them one by one,
select out the ones that state they can be distributed on a CD, and
burn a CD containing those works. Go for it. (Of course, the subset
you get will depend on whether the CD is being distributed for profit,
for the cost of the media, or for free. Various copyright notices take
different views of these different situations.)
Many of the works on the Archive have no copyright license at all, or
only a bare statement of copyright. Now, nearly all of them are in
fact under copyright -- only a few explicitly say "public domain".
We take as an assumption that anyone who uploads a work to the Archive
is implicitly granting permission for people to download it from the
Archive. But are they granting any *other* permission? Permission to
burn CDs? Permission to sell copies?
Maybe yes. Maybe no. You can't know unless you ask. It's perfectly
obvious, looking at the *explicit* copyright licenses on the Archive,
that some authors will say "yes" and some will say "no".
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Adam Thornton
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>kodrik <kod...@zc8.net> wrote:
>> If an author uploads his files to the archive, he makes those files
>> readily available to the public and it's then covered by the first
>> amendement.
The what?
The world doesn't all fit into the US.
Further, this is in no way a freedom of speech issue unless you are
arguing that the First Amendment somehow makes copyright illegitimate.
>We take as an assumption that anyone who uploads a work to the Archive
>is implicitly granting permission for people to download it from the
>Archive. But are they granting any *other* permission? Permission to
>burn CDs? Permission to sell copies?
Although I suspect that if you want to burn a CD for your own personal
use, that's entirely your business, and no one will come kick down your
door. Once you start distributing it, then the worms escape from the
can.
Adam
Mark J. Tilford
>"kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote in message
>news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com...
>> > CD burners are a dime a dozen these days. If someone wants IF on a CD
>they
>> > likely can do it themselves.
>>
>> Yes, but if they are no a modem downloading their games at 2k/sec it
>> can take a while to get yorugame.
>
>Many games _do_ have licenses associated within. It's no different than
>downloading a redhat distro and trying to make your own CD's and selling it.
>It's protected software. It's free, but protected.
>
Redhat isn't a good example. It is perfectly legal to resell Redhat, due
to the license under which it is distributed (GPL). For example, I'm
pretty sure the Mandrake distribution was originally Redhat + KDE.
But that's only because the GPL specifically allows charging for
redistribution. Most other licenses do not.
>And yes there is seemingly no reason not to do this other than the fact that
>the community, as a whole, as been against it. You'd be pissing a lot of
>authors off if you did this.
>
>Jarb
>
>
--
------------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@ugcs.caltech.edu
kodrik
> downloading a redhat distro and trying to make your own CD's and selling it.
> It's protected software. It's free, but protected.
Actually, you could download the red hat distro, add some elements to
it, make a CD, and sell the new package.
What it means, and it makes perfect sense, is that if you make a
product readily available to the public, it can by redistributed by
the public.
Anybody can directly download redhat and make a CD from it, therefore
I can ask you for $10 for the CD. You are not paying for Red Hat since
you can have it for free, you are paying for the service that it took
to get it to you.
If an author puts a file on the archive, regardless of copyrights and
licenses, it can be redistributed. The author retains its copyrights
and its licenses remains valid (except the clauses that don't conflict
with the first amendements). So eventought, the public can
redistribute it and write external code for portability to that extent
(like Frotz), they cannot modify it or sell its rights.
This makes perfect sense, if something is readily available to the
public but part of the public doesn't have the means to access it, you
are allowed to provide those means for it. And you are can charge for
the extra-step you took to that extent.
> And yes there is seemingly no reason not to do this other than the fact that
> the community, as a whole, as been against it. You'd be pissing a lot of
> authors off if you did this.
If you put a file for download on the archive, you have no control on
who downloads it. I would like to hear from an author who put his file
on the archive and says "I only want people with a good internet
connection to get it"; I would see it as totally unethical.
The only thing I can see is that an author would think it is unfair
that someone makes a profit from their story.
But they are not making a profit from your story, they are charging
for what's involved in getting it to the customer. They can't
overcharge otherwise someone else will offer it at a cheaper price;
people will pay what the service is worth, not the programs.
And this is a good thing, there should not be minimum standards for
who gets what is freely available to the public and you should support
efforts to bring these things to as much of the public as possible,
even if it means rewarding those efforts.
I understand authors do an enormous amount of work with little or no
reward. But that doesn't mean they should be pissed at those who do
make profits from their games:
* The electric company that provides power while the game is being
played.
* The archive internet provider who gets paid for hosting the archive.
* The bandwidth providr that gets paid for the transfer of the file by
the user.
And there are much more stupide examples like this.
If they didn't get paid, there wouldn't be an archive. I don't expect
anybody to pay to press 1,000s of CDs of the archives and post them
himself.
But I do hope someone can set up a service so CDs of the archives can
be sent to people willing to pay for the service. If someone makes a
few penny doing this, good for him, he deserves it, if he makes too
many pennies compared to the work, someone else will do it for cheaper
and at the end, the reward for who provides this service will be no
greater than what it deserves.
Another fear an author might have, is misrepresentation, and this is
not allowed since the author has the right to the image of its work.
In case of duplicating the archive, the author obviously authorized it
so there is no fear of misrepresentation.
Are there authors out there with work on the archive who have a
problem with someone putting the archive on a CD and selling it so it
is feasible?
I would really want to know where the problem lies.
Peter Seebach
kodrik <kod...@zc8.net> wrote:
>readily available to the public and it's then covered by the first
>amendement.
The first amendment has nothing to do with copying *other people's* stuff;
it just has to do with what stuff you're allowed to say.
>He retains the copyright but gave up his right to control
>distribution.
This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>From my short ecperience, this bad group rep is just a rumor and I've
>experienced quite the contrary. Is there any author here that has a
>problem in their freely available adventure to be also available on a
>CD format, and that some guy doesn't bear the cost of getting your
>game to a player?
I personally don't care much about stuff I give away, but I would say that,
the moment you get into for-profit distribution, or even for-breakeven, you're
looking at something you probably ought to have permission for.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Peter Seebach
>accessible for all.
Begging your pardon, but no one has even the slightest right to the smallest
amount of my creative output except as I choose to make it available; "fair"
doesn't enter into it.
-s
p.s.: This is coming from someone whose sole IF game is either freeware or
public domain, and who would cheerfully place it in the public domain if
anyone asked.
Adam Thornton
>licenses, it can be redistributed.
You are on crack.
The author retains its copyrights
>and its licenses remains valid (except the clauses that don't conflict
>with the first amendements).
Once again, you are on crack. This has absolutely nothing to do with
the First Amendment, which, even if it did, would certainly not apply
outside the United States. (And, it may be argued, no longer does
within the US, thanks to aggressive lobbying by content owners).
> So eventought, the public can
>redistribute it and write external code for portability to that extent
>(like Frotz), they cannot modify it or sell its rights.
Even if this made sense, you would still be on crack.
>This makes perfect sense, if something is readily available to the
>public but part of the public doesn't have the means to access it, you
>are allowed to provide those means for it. And you are can charge for
>the extra-step you took to that extent.
Despite your rationalizations, you are wrong, and you are on crack.
>If you put a file for download on the archive, you have no control on
>who downloads it. I would like to hear from an author who put his file
>on the archive and says "I only want people with a good internet
>connection to get it"; I would see it as totally unethical.
And downloading it from the archive is not the same as burning it onto a
CD and selling the CD.
>The only thing I can see is that an author would think it is unfair
>that someone makes a profit from their story.
>But they are not making a profit from your story, they are charging
>for what's involved in getting it to the customer. They can't
>overcharge otherwise someone else will offer it at a cheaper price;
>people will pay what the service is worth, not the programs.
Let me repeat, slowly this time, so maybe you will understand it: you
are both wrong and on crack.
[rest of rant snipped, because it's just upsetting me]
>I would really want to know where the problem lies.
The problem lies with arrogant fools assuming that because something is
available for download, that _ipso facto_ means they can redistribute
it, possibly even for profit, which is *manifestly* not the case.
Here, let me make this more plain: *YOU*, kod...@zc8.net, may *not* sell
any CD containing my game "Sins Against Mimesis."
And I believe that the notice in the source code for _Stiffy Makane:
The Undiscovered Country_ is sufficiently clear:
! Feel free to copy this, modify it, whatever, but don't sell it and
! don't pretend you wrote it from scratch.
Note that this does not say, "don't sell it for a profit," or "don't
sell it for a service fee," or "don't sell it on Tuesdays," although,
indeed, all of those are a subset of what it says, which is quite
simple: "don't sell it."
Adam
kodrik
> arguing that the First Amendment somehow makes copyright illegitimate.
Yes, when you make something readily available to the public (which
means for free and accessible without identification (which you do
when you post it on the archive).
You do retain your copyrights, so noone can license, misrepresent or
alter your work. But as far as distribution, anyone can redistribute
it as long as it is not misprepresented.
The files you put on the archive, anybody can distribute them to other
people. What your license states is whether they and how they can
modify your work and the licensing of the content (using the story for
a movie for example).
The only right you have given up by putting it on the archive is the
control of how these specific files get to the end user, including
repackaging and selling the package.
We are not talking about the work, but the files posted:
Q: Are the files readily available in the public domain
A: Yes, by posting them on the archive, they are available in the
public domain
Q: Is a First amendement right to publish files readily available in
the public domain?
Y: Yes,
"The court recognized that trade secrets do not trump the First
Amendment rights of citizens to publish and discuss information
readily available in the public domain,"
http://cipherwar.com/news/01/decss_free_speech_1105.htm
Eventhough it's about trade secret, the first amendment interpretation
remains the same and it also trumps copyrights.
> >We take as an assumption that anyone who uploads a work to the Archive
> >is implicitly granting permission for people to download it from the
> >Archive. But are they granting any *other* permission? Permission to
> >burn CDs? Permission to sell copies?
Yes, exactly
> Although I suspect that if you want to burn a CD for your own personal
> use, that's entirely your business, and no one will come kick down your
> door. Once you start distributing it, then the worms escape from the
> can.
It makes no difference. You are just make an already available product
more accessible.
Again, we are just talking about distributing the "files" on the
archive that are available freely to the public, we are not changing
any of the owner's rights to the content of these files.
Adam Thornton
You say:
>You do retain your copyrights, so noone can license, misrepresent or
>alter your work. But as far as distribution, anyone can redistribute
>it as long as it is not misprepresented.
And then you say:
>We are not talking about the work, but the files posted:
>Q: Are the files readily available in the public domain
>A: Yes, by posting them on the archive, they are available in the
>public domain
I think you do not understand what "public domain" means.
My IF is available for free.
It is not in the public domain.
Don't you dare distribute it without my explicit consent. Which, to
remove any suspense, I will not grant to you.
Adam
Peter Seebach
>means for free and accessible without identification (which you do
>when you post it on the archive).
Could you give a citation here?
>We are not talking about the work, but the files posted:
>Q: Are the files readily available in the public domain
>A: Yes, by posting them on the archive, they are available in the
>public domain
False. "Public domain" is a term of art, referring to things which *have no
copyright procection*. As long as something is covered by copyright, it is
*BY DEFINITION* not "in the public domain".
>"The court recognized that trade secrets do not trump the First
>Amendment rights of citizens to publish and discuss information
>readily available in the public domain,"
>http://cipherwar.com/news/01/decss_free_speech_1105.htm
>Eventhough it's about trade secret, the first amendment interpretation
>remains the same and it also trumps copyrights.
Boy, are you misunderstanding this. The "public domain" has nothing to do
with "easily available", and a lot to do with either material explicitly
placed there, material whose copyright has expired, or material that was
never subject to copyright at all.
>Again, we are just talking about distributing the "files" on the
>archive that are available freely to the public, we are not changing
>any of the owner's rights to the content of these files.
But we are copying, and distributing, a copyrighted work, and that means the
owner has the authority to tell us not to. If I say "this may be distributed
by the if-archive, but not by anyone else", then no one but the if-archive
has the right to distribute it, *period*.
-s
Peter Seebach
M Burnham <sirk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Just out of curiousity... Why wouldn't you want your personal work
>distributed in another medium? Would you prefer that, instead of
>sending a file to a friend, I just sent him to hyperlink.. Wasting
>everybody's time?
Actually, sending a link, instead of a file, is probably an improvement; if
the friend decides not to play the game, he's not downloading it. Email is
not a file transfer medium, and shouldn't be used as one.
Anyway, one reason might be that some prick might start claiming that your
work is "in the public domain", and lead people to mistakenly believe that
it's not protected by copyright.
M Burnham
>CD burners are a dime a dozen these days. If someone wants IF on a CD they
>likely can do it themselves.
That's what I have been setting up myself to do... Ages later and I'm
not even half way there... How many newcomers to IF are we going to
get if we are gonna throw that in their face? I'd send someone a self
addressed envelope with a blank CD in it anyday.
And.. On that thought... Do you guys want newcomers? I'm 16, haven't
played too much IF, and thought it'd be good to have some younger
people playing and writing IF.
I don't know anyone under 40 years old that would touch IF, and I
don't know how long it'd last without a few more people coming into
it... And that would be a huge shame.
kodrik
> In article <269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com>,
> kodrik <kod...@zc8.net> wrote:
>
> You say:
>
> >You do retain your copyrights, so noone can license, misrepresent or
> >alter your work. But as far as distribution, anyone can redistribute
> >it as long as it is not misprepresented.
>
> And then you say:
>
> >We are not talking about the work, but the files posted:
> >Q: Are the files readily available in the public domain
> >A: Yes, by posting them on the archive, they are available in the
> >public domain
>
> I think you do not understand what "public domain" means.
>
> My IF is available for free.
>
> It is not in the public domain.
Sorry, you should read:
Are the files readily available to the public?
The conclusions are the same.
> Don't you dare distribute it without my explicit consent.
It hasn't crossed my mind:
* Even if its legal, it must be done with the support of the community
* The best person to do it are the people running the archive. They
have direct access to the hard drive containing the files and can
press current CDs as ordered. It would be inefficient for another
group to do it right.
> Which, to remove any suspense, I will not grant to you.
Why would you be opposed to it? These file are available to anyone
with a modem so why not to anyone with a CD reader?
Ben A L Jemmett
> alter your work. But as far as distribution, anyone can redistribute
> it as long as it is not misprepresented.
Uhr, *hello*? The word is copyright -- *copy*right. The right to copy. An
author does indeed own the copyright in a work, regardless of where he's
chosen to make it available from. Only the author can grant the right to
make copies; in the case of an upload to an archive, it's assumed the author
is granting you the right to download it and make copies for your own use.
Other copies are an infringement of copyright.
I think Mr. Thornton has it right. Put the crack pipe down now, the fumes
can't be good for you.
--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)
Ben A L Jemmett
>
> Sorry, you should read:
> Are the files readily available to the public?
I think *you* should read. A few articles on copyright law first, then a
dictionary. Collins has the following to say on the matter:
public domain n. 1. U.S. lands owned by the state or by the federal
government. 2. the status of a published work or invention upon which the
copyright or patent has expired or which has not been patented or subject to
copyright. It may thus be freely used by the public.
It has nothing to do with availability, merely whether the work is subject
to copyright. *ALL* works have an implicit copyright, which has to be
*explicitly* revoked before the work becomes public domain. So, the only
works you can *assume* to be freely redistributable are the ones stating
'This work has been placed in public domain.' or similar.
kodrik
> available for download, that _ipso facto_ means they can redistribute
> it, possibly even for profit, which is *manifestly* not the case.
It is not being arrogant to state your opinion, especially if you
beleive it is informed.
> Here, let me make this more plain: *YOU*, kod...@zc8.net, may *not* sell
> any CD containing my game "Sins Against Mimesis."
> And I believe that the notice in the source code for _Stiffy Makane:
> The Undiscovered Country_ is sufficiently clear:
>
> ! Feel free to copy this, modify it, whatever, but don't sell it and
> ! don't pretend you wrote it from scratch.
>
> Note that this does not say, "don't sell it for a profit," or "don't
> sell it for a service fee," or "don't sell it on Tuesdays," although,
> indeed, all of those are a subset of what it says, which is quite
> simple: "don't sell it."
You can also say, you specifically cannot download my game from the
archive, or you cannot play it, or you cannot redistribute the file.
What you say still has to obey and follow some laws that make sense.
It never was my intention to make such a CD eventhough I though it
would be useful. If anyone ever puts together such a CD, I can assure
you it will be for the love of IF and not for profit.
I might be wrong but I might also be right. And if I am right then
maybe it help you in releasing future games in a way that can be
enforced.
You don't have to take negatively other people's opinion if they clash
with yours.
kodrik
>
> My IF is available for free.
>
> It is not in the public domain.
I agree, your work is not part of the public domain, just your file is
and with it the right to transmit it.
The files you uploaded to the IF archive for public download without
any registration or fees are readily available to the public and in
consequence part of the public domain.
You gave up your right to control who will access those files, how
they access them, or how they transmt it to another party.
The content is not released to the public domain, someone cannot use
your story for his work, modify your story in any way, or misrepresent
it.
All writers know this and if they make their work publicly available
(like by posting it on a public site), anybody can put their work on
their web site without authorization as long as it is not edited and
proper credit is given.
I've been involved in this a situation recently that involved
publishing copyright work that is readily available to the public.
Many parties contacted my on the situation, including the EFF, and not
one told me something contrary to what I've been saying.
And this is not some weird law specific to the United States, it is
pretty much consistent to the rest of the world. The spirit is that if
you make something available to the public, the public has the right
to re-distribute it so it is more accessible.
If you write an article for the public, I have the right to read it on
the radio or to print in brail for blinds.
You, on the other hand, have no right to say "only white people can
read it", which is what you do by saying "only people with an internet
connection can get it".
You cannot also say, if I don't make money with my product, noone can.
I can write reviews for IF products and sell a book with them. I can
even write a book about just your products, including walkthrough and
cheats and sell it. And I can even put a CD in the book cover with the
file you put on the archive and sell this book.
You cannot retrict public use on something available to the public,
explictly or implicitly offered to the public.
It has everything to do with the 1st amendement and you won't find
many developed countries that support the segregation of publicly
available information.
I feel bad that IF authors don't get compensated for their
extraordinary work. I feel bad that the people working for the
structures of this community (archives, reviews, tools...) don't get
compensated. And if any party finds a way to make a profit and I
don't, I am not going to be negative towards them, I will be happy
some people get some compensation for their work, and proud that my
work helped them.
I still don't understand your problem with a CD. Are you just jaleous
that someon might make a penny off your work?
You should be happy for them, everyone should be rewarded for their
work in some aspect. And in our case, they are not even making a
profit, they are covering their cost.
Legal or not, why woudl you want to restrict the distribution of what
you made publicly available?
Gunther Schmidl
> I still don't understand your problem with a CD. Are you just jaleous
> that someon might make a penny off your work?
And why the fuck should they? You go and copy Microsoft Windows (say) and
sell copies of it and see how quickly you get your ass busted.
My work is mine, and if you want to distribute it for profit, you ASK ME.
Incidentally, the license of one of my games clearly states, inside the
game:
> This game may not be redistributed on electronic media (diskette, CD-ROM,
> etc.) without the explicit written permission of the author.
> This game may not be sold at all without the explicit written permission
> of the author.
If there's anything unclear about that, I don't know how else to tell you.
-- Gunther
Gunther Schmidl
> And.. On that thought... Do you guys want newcomers? I'm 16, haven't
> played too much IF, and thought it'd be good to have some younger
> people playing and writing IF.
Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Unless you want to start a copyright
thread here, in which case people *will* piss in your cheerios.
> I don't know anyone under 40 years old that would touch IF
Seriously? David Glasser was, I believe, 16 when he wrote his first IF game,
VirtuaTech (correct me if I'm wrong); I'm 25, and many people on ifMUD are
around or below my age (though there are older ones too).
-- Gunther
David Glasser
> Seriously? David Glasser was, I believe, 16 when he wrote his first IF game,
> VirtuaTech (correct me if I'm wrong); I'm 25, and many people on ifMUD are
> around or below my age (though there are older ones too).
Actually, I was 13. Of course, VirtuaTech sucked and I haven't written
anything since then, so take this with a whole shaker of salt.
--
David Glasser
ne...@davidglasser.net http://www.davidglasser.net/
mattF
> You should be happy for them, everyone should be rewarded for their
> work in some aspect.
WHAT work? Burning a cd doesn't qualify as 'work'. If someone makes a copy
of a song *I wrote* and which I distribute over the net for free, I say good
for them. If they make *fifty* copies and send it to all their friends, I
say good for them. If they make fifty copies and charge ten bucks a head,
I'll hunt them down like the dogs they are and feed them their own fucking
teeth.
-mattF
mattF
> You don't have to take negatively other people's opinion if they clash
> with yours.
Unless they're of the opinion that it's okay to exploit you or something.
Then you can go for your life.
-mattF
Andrew Plotkin
Go read the US law on copyright.
It's available on-line. I've read it.
Go read it, and then think about what it says.
(And to head off this particular side issue, the text of US federal
law is itself non-copyrighted. Works produced by the government are
not copyrightable. Title 17, chapter 1, section 105.)
I'm going to killfile this thread for a while, because I'm still tired
of it from last time. I hope I've made the position of the IF Archive
maintainers clear -- if not, email me.
Peter Seebach
>and with it the right to transmit it.
This is simply not true, and by this time, you should have accepted that
perhaps it's time to go do some reading on the material involved, because
it's clear that you are missing something.
The file *is* the creative work, and it is not in the public domain until
the author says so, or the author has been dead for 75 years.
This won't happen to any IF for quite a while.
Peter Seebach
>beleive it is informed.
Opinions are not at issue; this is a point of law.
>You can also say, you specifically cannot download my game from the
>archive, or you cannot play it, or you cannot redistribute the file.
Sure.
>What you say still has to obey and follow some laws that make sense.
Not really. Copyright does not require copyright holders to make the
slightest bit of sense.
>I might be wrong but I might also be right.
No, you're wrong. This is a point of law, and one that can be easily
researched.
>You don't have to take negatively other people's opinion if they clash
>with yours.
This is not a subject on which opinions are relevant.
Adam Thornton
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>In article <3c53b0a9...@news.hotkey.net.au>,
>M Burnham <sirk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Just out of curiousity... Why wouldn't you want your personal work
>>distributed in another medium? Would you prefer that, instead of
>>sending a file to a friend, I just sent him to hyperlink.. Wasting
>>everybody's time?
>work is "in the public domain", and lead people to mistakenly believe that
>it's not protected by copyright.
Well, yes.
Mostly because the idea of someone selling a CD, and making money, off
of my work, pisses me off.
If you *want* to do something like that, *ASK ME*. If you're really
just recovering your expenses, I'll probably say, "fine, go ahead."
If you're making money (as a "service fee" or whatever), I'm going to
want a cut.
But mostly it's the principal of the thing: you have no *right* to
distribute it that I do not grant you. Ask me for the rights--before
you piss me off by asserting that you don't have to--and I'm extremely
likely to be happy to grant them to you.
Adam
Branko Collin
>> I think you do not understand what "public domain" means.
>>
>> My IF is available for free.
>>
>> It is not in the public domain.
>
>I agree, your work is not part of the public domain, just your file is
>and with it the right to transmit it.
No it is not. Why do you keep repeating this lie?
Strictly speaking, even the IF Archive is doing illegal things.
Uploading a file to it is not the same as giving them a license to
distribute it. There are no such things as implicit licenses.
--
branko collin
Volk van San Theodoros, ik heb U begrepen.
Branko Collin
>I might be wrong but I might also be right.
You're wrong. Unless you have got your own made up definition of what
wrong and right mean. If that is the case: why do you keep clicking
that Send button?
Branko Collin
13:43:14 GMT:
>"kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote in message
>news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com...
>
>> You should be happy for them, everyone should be rewarded for their
>> work in some aspect.
>
>WHAT work? Burning a cd doesn't qualify as 'work'.
The end result does, though.
>If someone makes a copy
>of a song *I wrote* and which I distribute over the net for free, I say good
>for them. If they make *fifty* copies and send it to all their friends, I
>say good for them. If they make fifty copies and charge ten bucks a head,
>I'll hunt them down like the dogs they are and feed them their own fucking
>teeth.
All fine and dandy, but you're talking about what seems to morally
right, not about what the law says. I suggest that you and mr. Kodrik
both sign up for Copyright 1.01.
See <http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>.
Branko Collin
+0000 (UTC):
>In article <269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com>,
>kodrik <kod...@zc8.net> wrote:
>>If an author puts a file on the archive, regardless of copyrights and
>>licenses, it can be redistributed.
>
>You are on crack.
So?
Branko Collin
08:06:49 GMT:
>>CD burners are a dime a dozen these days. If someone wants IF on a CD they
>>likely can do it themselves.
>
>That's what I have been setting up myself to do... Ages later and I'm
>not even half way there... How many newcomers to IF are we going to
>get if we are gonna throw that in their face?
The type of argument that you are trying to use ('X is not going to
happen if not Y' -- without actually knowing if Y happened) has got a
very fancy name, but I am too lazy to look it up.
Anyhow, yes, there are a lot of newcomers, thank you. There are also a
lot of people who rediscover IF to their great delight. It would seem
that they have no problem downloading files that are so small, they're
often not even compressed, even over slow modems (until July of this
year, I used 28k8 myself).
Adam Thornton
>that someon might make a penny off your work?
>You should be happy for them, everyone should be rewarded for their
>work in some aspect. And in our case, they are not even making a
>profit, they are covering their cost.
At this point, it isn't "someon" [sic]--it's *you*. Your assertion that
I do not have the right to restrict the redistribution of my work--no
matter how arbitrary and illogical that restriction--has pissed me off.
Therefore you cannot redistribute my work.
Your previous justifications sounded a lot like you were planning on
doing more than covering your cost, by charging a "service fee," or a
"convenience fee," or something like that. And, frankly, yes, if you
are making money off of repackaging my work, I want some of that money.
But it's not the money that has me all lathered up, it's the principal
of the thing. Simply because I choose to make my work available for
download doesn't mean I choose to make it available for arbitrary
redistribution. Now, granted, people who have attempted this before
have had the good sense to *ask* me if I minded before they went and
pissed my off by asserting they didn't haven to ask, and I've generally
been pretty free about granting such rights.
That's what it comes down to for me, generally. I'm usually happy to
give away things if I'm asked to, but it pisses me off when people try
to just *take* the same things that I would have freely given.
Adam
Peter Seebach
Branko Collin <col...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Strictly speaking, even the IF Archive is doing illegal things.
>Uploading a file to it is not the same as giving them a license to
>distribute it. There are no such things as implicit licenses.
Not quite so - for instance, although your post is a copyrighted work, I
don't need permission to quote it to respond to it. There are *some*
implicit licenses, but they're fairly narrow.
kodrik
We all agree on what the copyright says.
We just don't agree that putting a work to public download means
loosing control of this part of the copyright protection.
I think it would take hard evidence for any of us to change their
opinions.
Regardless, this is what I understand from it:
* It is clear that some authors are against putting the archive on CD.
I must add I still don't get why they don't want their freely
available files to be put on CD to be more available.
* Nobody will put the archive on CD if it bothers some authors, and
even the archive maintainers are against it; if anybody thought of
doing it, it was to help and not to fight. Although it must be made
clear regurarly because in other industries (such as open source),
people don't think twice about mirroring and burning CD of publicly
available code, copyrighted or not. And someone who thinks he is
helping might piss off a lot of people and do just the opposite.
Adam Thornton
>people don't think twice about mirroring and burning CD of publicly
>available code, copyrighted or not. And someone who thinks he is
>helping might piss off a lot of people and do just the opposite.
You clearly function in a very different Open Source community than I
do. The Open Source guys *I* know are much, much, *much* more concerned
with ensuring that the letter of any given license--whether it's GPL,
QPL, BSD, or whatever--is observed than anyone else I know.
As an example: I do a lot of work with Linux on the System/390. One of
the major issues right now is the Debian port. Everything works, but
because the IBM LCS/QDIO/OSA drivers (effectively, an OSA is the
System/390's equivalent of an Ethernet card) are object-code-only
(although freely available from IBM), due to IBM's decision, they cannot
be distributed with Debian, which refuses, as a matter of policy, to
release anything as part of its core distribution which is not available
under an Open Source license. Since the OSA card is far and away the
most common way to give a System/390 external connectivity, this poses a
bit of a problem for doing any sort of a network installation. If the
world were as simple as you appear to believe, the Debian folks would
simply have said, "well, IBM is giving away its drivers, so we can put
them in the package." This is very, very much not the case.
Some time you might do a little research and find out which authors
whose works appear on the IF archive have made substantial contributions
to significant Open Source projects. It is not ignorance of either the
law nor of the Open Source community that is prompting the response to
your remarks.
Adam
Peter Seebach
>loosing control of this part of the copyright protection.
Right, because there's nothing that says it would.
>* It is clear that some authors are against putting the archive on CD.
>I must add I still don't get why they don't want their freely
>available files to be put on CD to be more available.
Perhaps because you started out asserting they didn't get a vote, and
that always bugs people.
>* Nobody will put the archive on CD if it bothers some authors, and
>even the archive maintainers are against it; if anybody thought of
>doing it, it was to help and not to fight. Although it must be made
>clear regurarly because in other industries (such as open source),
>people don't think twice about mirroring and burning CD of publicly
>available code, copyrighted or not. And someone who thinks he is
>helping might piss off a lot of people and do just the opposite.
In the open source industry, *the license explicitly says that redistribution
is allowed*. That's the key.
D. Jacob Wildstrom
>We just don't agree that putting a work to public download means
>loosing control of this part of the copyright protection.
>I think it would take hard evidence for any of us to change their
>opinions.
Neither of the two statements above are opinions. They are matters of
law. If I were to license a work to allw completely free distribution,
I _would_ ose some measure of control. Whether this loss of control is
something to be concerned about, or whether so licensing is a noble
thing, would be a matter of opinion.
>* It is clear that some authors are against putting the archive on CD.
>I must add I still don't get why they don't want their freely
>available files to be put on CD to be more available.
Few, if any, IF authors would actually be opposed to physical-media
archival and (depending on the commercial aspects) distribution of
their freeware works (n.b. freeware is a distinct concept and
generally a distinct license from either open-source or public
domain). The objection here concerns the extent to which they deserve
_control_ of this process -- many IF works are licensed to as to allow
such a distribution under permission of the author, and most would
freely grant it when asked, but none of us take too kindly to omission
of this step. In essence, what it comes down to is the respect and
exercise of legal privilege derving from intellectual property. Few
are going to exercise their privilege (i.e. by legal action, or by
forbidding certain distribution), but we insist that our privilege be
recognized and respected, because if it isn't, it won't be respected
when we DO want to exercise it.
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
David A. Cornelson
news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com...
Wow. It's like every time you post you take a step backwards in the
community. The overriding assumption you need to get into that thick skull
of yours is this:
This community has a way about it and a history. You seem to think that your
thoughts and ideas somehow supercede nearly 10 years of history. I've said
this here and in private memos to you that you need to review the
rec.arts.int-fiction archive on various subjects when they popup before you
chime in. Be more careful about your assumptions because so far they've been
patently all wrong.
Jarb
Branko Collin
GMT:
>In article <3c543e17...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>Branko Collin <col...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Strictly speaking, even the IF Archive is doing illegal things.
>>Uploading a file to it is not the same as giving them a license to
>>distribute it. There are no such things as implicit licenses.
>
>Not quite so - for instance, although your post is a copyrighted work, I
>don't need permission to quote it to respond to it. There are *some*
>implicit licenses, but they're fairly narrow.
Oh? I always thought you did not implicitly have the right to copy
part of my posting (although some copyright laws, such as the USAlian
and the Dutch ones, provide for mechanisms in which some amount of
quoting is considered to be fair and legal).
Also, even if quoting is legal, collecting postings in Google's
archive is probably not. Although the fact that nobody ever seems to
have sued Deja or Google over this seems to point out that people
generally do not care. Which is not the same as making it legal, but
you knew that.
Peter Seebach
Branko Collin <col...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Oh? I always thought you did not implicitly have the right to copy
>part of my posting (although some copyright laws, such as the USAlian
>and the Dutch ones, provide for mechanisms in which some amount of
>quoting is considered to be fair and legal).
Look at it this way - no court will ever take your side if you sue people
for responding to you on Usenet.
>Also, even if quoting is legal, collecting postings in Google's
>archive is probably not. Although the fact that nobody ever seems to
>have sued Deja or Google over this seems to point out that people
>generally do not care. Which is not the same as making it legal, but
>you knew that.
I'm not sure. There's some fuzzy ground with intentional broadcast
distribution. Essentially, no one would object to you running an open
usenet server, and no one would object if you never expired articles, so
it's not clear they can object if you make it searchable.
kodrik
> community. The overriding assumption you need to get into that thick skull
> of yours is this:
I don't think it was taking a step backwards to set up an easy db for
IF and people have been helpful with it so far.
It seems that my posts are misinterpreted to some extend. Someone
started this thread by saying it would be a good idea to make a CD of
the archive and sell it and I supported that statement saying that
they should do it, or even better, the archivers should do it. And in
order to be feasible, they should charge the cost of it. I also stated
that I didn't think there were any protection issues.
From this, many people assumed I was trying to make a CD and sell it
for a profit; the same way that people were thinking that I would
charge for the database access in some way. The replies to the
copyrights were valid, but I don't know where the personal ones about
posting their work came from. I am not a good communicator I guess.
For some reason, it seems there is an obsession with abuse, maybe in
the past some authors of this group were victim of scams with their IF
work or there is just some bitterness about the little return for hard
and quality work performed.
I don't write things to piss off people or to find ways to take
advantage of some people. When I write a post, I sincerely hope it
contributes to building something in some way.
> This community has a way about it and a history. You seem to think that your
> thoughts and ideas somehow supercede nearly 10 years of history. I've said
> this here and in private memos to you that you need to review the
> rec.arts.int-fiction archive on various subjects when they popup before you
> chime in. Be more careful about your assumptions because so far they've been
> patently all wrong.
I don't know why you think the DB is wrong. And I don't think I am the
only one that believing there is a market and future for IF.
Granted, there is DB made for the general public today, there is no
developed market for IF today, and there is no CD for the archive
today.
But I don't think they are bad things and we shoudl try to find ways
to make them happen instead of shooting at anyone who make an attempt.
I'm sure there is a way we can find to make a CD with IF work in a way
that won't threaten the authors and that's not an administration
nightmare and doesn't cost to the people doing it. But for this to
happen, people have to work towards the same goal instead of against
it.
mattF
"Branko Collin" <col...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3c5452f7...@news.xs4all.nl...
> "mattF" <lust_fo...@hotmail.com>, you wrote on Sun, 27 Jan 2002
> 13:43:14 GMT:
> >"kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote in message
> >news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >> You should be happy for them, everyone should be rewarded for their
> >> work in some aspect.
>
>
> >WHAT work? Burning a cd doesn't qualify as 'work'.
>
> The end result does, though.
Yes, someone else's. (I acknowledge I may have misunderstood what you and
Kodrik were getting at here, so if it turns out we're talking about diferent
things, forget I said anything.)
> All fine and dandy, but you're talking about what seems to morally
> right, not about what the law says.
What I'm talking about is my own, personal, threshold of tolerance when it
comes to my work. If what you're objecting to is my threat of violence, I
was being metaphorical. Honest.
I'm not going to pursue someone making a copy of my *free* work because it
doesn't bother me, legally correct or otherwise. As soon as it becomes what
I, personally, see as exploitation or theft, then I'll do what I can to
excercise authorial control.
I suggest that you and mr. Kodrik
> both sign up for Copyright 1.01.
I'm afraid you lost me, Branko, my good man. Can you tell me which part of
this I'm supposed to be reading, which I've apparently misunderstood so
*very* badly that you felt the need to take a smug, catholic
headmaster-style piss on me? (Serves me right for actually posting
something in a Satanic c*pyright thread, i guess.)
From the link you posted:
"Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant
you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying
the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net. "
Well, that's pretty much what I *thought* I was getting at. Wasn't it? Or
am I on crack too?
-mattF (Not as pissed as he sounds.)
Adam Thornton
mattF <lust_fo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, that's pretty much what I *thought* I was getting at. Wasn't it? Or
>am I on crack too?
"We're *ALL* on crack here," as the Cheshire Assjack said, in Rob
Sherwin and Mike Sousa's seminal game, "No Time For Rosy-Phallused
Dawn."
Adam
kodrik
> to copyright. *ALL* works have an implicit copyright, which has to be
> *explicitly* revoked before the work becomes public domain. So, the only
> works you can *assume* to be freely redistributable are the ones stating
> 'This work has been placed in public domain.' or similar.
I do not say that the work looses its copyright, just that you can
redistribute it.
If you buy a copyright book you can turn arouns and resell it for a
profit, the author cannot do anything about it.
If there was a way to prevent people to resell what they acquired
legally, you wouln't be able to resell anything as manufacturors would
want to put pressure on people to buy new products.
It's also a problem with OEM deals where down the road the products
get break-up and sold into pieces.
I can legally acquire the files from the archive (by downloading them)
and put them on a CD and send them to a friend, the same way I can buy
a lamp, put it in a box and send it.
By putting the files on the archive, you are granting ownership of the
files to anyboy (not copyright, ownership) and then can turn around
and give them to someone else.
You might think that because your product is free, the copyright
protection will be extended in different way than a purchased product,
but it isn't.
As long as people don't modify the files or misrepresent them, they
can distribute it to other people regardless of copyrights since you
"sold" it to them.
I hope this way of putting it will make my point clearer.
mattF
"Adam Thornton" <ad...@fsf.net> wrote in message
news:a32gah$n26$1...@news.fsf.net...
Strangely, I feel much better.
-mattF
Nils Barth
>> It has nothing to do with availability, merely whether the work is subject
>> to copyright. *ALL* works have an implicit copyright, which has to be
>> *explicitly* revoked before the work becomes public domain. So, the only
>> works you can *assume* to be freely redistributable are the ones stating
>> 'This work has been placed in public domain.' or similar.
>
>I do not say that the work looses its copyright, just that you can
>redistribute it.
>
>If you buy a copyright book you can turn arouns and resell it for a
>profit, the author cannot do anything about it.
I suspected there was some `Doctrine of First Sale'-thinking going on
behind this.
I think the (legal) difference between buying a book/getting it free
and then selling it, and making a CD of software/etc. and selling it
is that you make *copies* of software.
The second you make a copy, copyright law gets involved.
Yes, this is archaic and pretty silly (imo): saying you can have some
bits but not copy them is kinda absurd (asking bits to not be copyable
is like asking water to not be wet, as some say).
...and indeed one could say that this is a dangerous legal principle:
some have argued that you need to make a `copy' of a program in order
to run it (b/c it is `copied' from the hard drive to RAM, say), and
thus (they draw some ridiculous conclusion).
That said, the rough consensus about software/computer stuff seems to
be that you do need permission to do most anything with it, save run
it or make a backup copy for yourself (and some try to take even that
away).
For instance, if you buy a copy of Microsoft Windows, you can't start
printing CDs of it and giving them or selling them to your friends
(they say).
However, outside of businesses, people generally copy bits without
a second thought. Speed limits and drug laws (esp. alcohol) aside,
bit-copying regulations are probably the most disregarded laws around,
which to me says something about their validity/weight.
Richard Bos
> We just don't agree that putting a work to public download means
> loosing control of this part of the copyright protection.
_Losing_ control, damnit, _losing_ control. Just using that single
bonehead mistake has lost you the argument in my eyes.
Fuck, I shouldn't need to teach Merkins their own fucking language.
Richard
Bernard El-Hagin
<in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> kod...@zc8.net (kodrik) wrote:
>
>> We just don't agree that putting a work to public download means
>> loosing control of this part of the copyright protection.
>
> _Losing_ control, damnit, _losing_ control. Just using that single
> bonehead mistake has lost you the argument in my eyes.
_Making_ that single bonehead mistake, damnit, _making_.
> Fuck, I shouldn't need to teach Merkins their own fucking language.
Lose "need to" and it makes more sense.
Cheers,
Bernard
Graham Holden
everyone:
<snip>
>
>The only thing I can see is that an author would think it is unfair
>that someone makes a profit from their story.
<snip>
This is the whole crux of your problem
"The only thing I can ***see*** is that..."
It doesn't matter what you *see* as being an unfair/illogical/weird or
any such action on the part of the author.
What matters is that the author has the *right* to make this decision
*for themselves*. They are free to be as helpful/kind/unfair or
illogical as they want to, because they hold the copyright, UNLESS
they have *specifically* relinquished said copyright.
Putting a file in the archive does NOT relinquish copyright.
NOT saying you DON'T relinquish copyright does NOT relinquish
copyright.
Saying (or implying by placing in the archive) that the file may be
downloaded does NOT relinquish copyright, NOR does it inherently grant
others the right to distribute it in other ways.
If an author retains copyright, they retain control (=right) on how it
is distributed (=copied). Whatever you *feel* the author won't mind
is irrelevant. As many have said; if asked, they would permit such a
distribution, *BUT* they have to be asked. You cannot assume they
won't mind.
Graham Holden
(g DASH holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
Ben A L Jemmett
> redistribute it.
That's bullshit.
> If you buy a copyright book you can turn arouns and resell it for a
> profit, the author cannot do anything about it.
Spot the difference:
* I buy a book and sell it at a profit.
* I download a file, burn it to thousands of CDs, sell those at a profit.
You *cannot* copy a copyrighted worked unless that permission has been
*explicitly* granted to you by the copyright holder. Selling your copy,
fine, making copies of it for others, no.
> I hope this way of putting it will make my point clearer.
Your point is invalid, since it is based on the premise that you are allowed
to copy a copyrighted work by default.
Look, if you want to distribute copies of a work by an author who hasn't
granted you that right already, you ask. And if the author says you can't
distribute it, you fucking well don't distribute it. It's that simple. Ask
any lawyer whose degree didn't come from the back of a cereal box.
--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)
Mark J Musante
> Actually, I was 13. Of course, VirtuaTech sucked
Actually, you are wrong.
http://www.igs.net/~tril/if/best/#virtuatech
-markm
Branko Collin
2002 12:28:56 GMT:
>Fuck, I shouldn't need to teach Merkins their own fucking language.
The fucking language does not have words and cannot be used on the
internet.
Does Hoekstra Publishers sell fucking works?
Branko Collin
03:09:46 GMT:
>> both sign up for Copyright 1.01.
>
>I'm afraid you lost me, Branko, my good man. Can you tell me which part of
>this I'm supposed to be reading, which I've apparently misunderstood so
>*very* badly that you felt the need to take a smug, catholic
>headmaster-style piss on me? (Serves me right for actually posting
>something in a Satanic c*pyright thread, i guess.)
>
>From the link you posted:
Erm, no, I thought you were confusing the letter of the law with what
you thought to be right too (just like Kodrik). If not, disregard what
I said.
(The link I put in there was not an example of Copyright 1.01.)
Matthew Russotto
>In article <a2vioh$775$1...@news.panix.com>,>>> If an author uploads his files to the archive, he makes those files
>>> readily available to the public and it's then covered by the first
>>> amendement.
>
>The what?
>
>The world doesn't all fit into the US.
>
>Further, this is in no way a freedom of speech issue unless you are
>arguing that the First Amendment somehow makes copyright illegitimate.
The DMCA is making me lean exactly that way.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Dmitry is free, but the DMCA survives. DMCA delenda est!
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Matthew Russotto
It's not OUR fucking language; we got it from the English. We really
would have preferred Russian, but none was available at the time.
(oh yeah, and we know what a merkin is, but not why anyone would want
one. Oh well, your kinks are your business)
Richard Bos
> Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> >Fuck, I shouldn't need to teach Merkins their own fucking language.
>
> It's not OUR fucking language; we got it from the English. We really
> would have preferred Russian, but none was available at the time.
You could've switched when you bought Alaska <g>.
Richard
Magnus Olsson
Matthew Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>In article <a2vpbr$pec$2...@news.fsf.net>, Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net> wrote:
>>Further, this is in no way a freedom of speech issue unless you are
>>arguing that the First Amendment somehow makes copyright illegitimate.
>
>The DMCA is making me lean exactly that way.
Surely, the First Amendment would make DMCA illegitimate, not copyright
itself?
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, m...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~mol ------
Matthew Russotto
Switching over the legacy systems in the other states would have busted
the budget.
Matthew Russotto
>In article <u5aq3t7...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Matthew Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>In article <a2vpbr$pec$2...@news.fsf.net>, Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net> wrote:
>>>Further, this is in no way a freedom of speech issue unless you are
>>>arguing that the First Amendment somehow makes copyright illegitimate.
>>
>>The DMCA is making me lean exactly that way.
>
>Surely, the First Amendment would make DMCA illegitimate, not copyright
>itself?
At its root, copyright forbids you from repeating what someone says to
you, or from writing what you have read. That puts copyright at odds with
the First Amendment right from the start.
In addition, the RIAA and the movie studios have a point -- if you don't
forbid the devices and require censorship by the infrastructure
operators, you cannot stop digital piracy. Suing the individual
violators is like draining the ocean with an eyedropper. So the
protection of digital copyright requires something like the DMCA. The
MPAA and RIAA claim this means the DMCA must fall under the same First
Amendment exemptions that copyright falls under. As one censored by the
DMCA, I find that I must go the other way -- because the DMCA is
required to enforce copyright, and the DMCA violates the First Amendment
big time, copyright must be the problem.
Richard Bos
> In article <3c556ccd....@news.tiscali.nl>,
> Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> >russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> >> >Fuck, I shouldn't need to teach Merkins their own fucking language.
> >>
> >> It's not OUR fucking language; we got it from the English. We really
> >> would have preferred Russian, but none was available at the time.
> >
> >You could've switched when you bought Alaska <g>.
>
> Switching over the legacy systems in the other states would have busted
> the budget.
Aw, come on, you got the territory cheap, anyway. What's a bit of
language switching if you've got a serious budget?
Richard
Gunther Schmidl
(snip)
> > _Losing_ control, damnit, _losing_ control. Just using that single
> > bonehead mistake has lost you the argument in my eyes.
>
>
> _Making_ that single bonehead mistake, damnit, _making_.
>
*uncontrollable snickering*
-- Gunther
Gunther Schmidl
> protection will be extended in different way than a purchased product,
> but it isn't.
> As long as people don't modify the files or misrepresent them, they
> can distribute it to other people regardless of copyrights since you
> "sold" it to them.
I repeat what the license of OAD says:
This game may not be redistributed on electronic media (diskette, CD-ROM,
etc.) without the explicit written permission of the author.
This game may not be sold at all without the explicit written permission
of the author.
In other words, copy it for someone else without asking me and I'll kick
your ass.
If this stupid fucking argument (by you, kodrik, since everyone else seems
to have understood by now) goes on any longer, I don't think I'll be
uploading any further work to the archive but host it on my web site only.
-- Gunther
John W. Kennedy
>
> > It's a dandy idea, IMO, provided you're planning to give away the CDs.
> > The moment you start charging, even for shipping and handling, questions
> > arise as to whether you have the right to charge for someone else's
> > copyrighted work. I'm not a copyright attorney, but such a project would
> > make me a little nervous.
>
> If an author uploads his files to the archive, he makes those files
> readily available to the public and it's then covered by the first
> amendement.
> distribution.
This is US-centric, but it doesn't matter, because it's legal nonsense
in any country. In the US, in particular, the 1st Amendment has no
bearing on copyright at all, save insofar as it is involved in the
"right of parody" issue.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.txt
L. Ross Raszewski
>In article <3c53b0a9...@news.hotkey.net.au>,
>M Burnham <sirk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Just out of curiousity... Why wouldn't you want your personal work
>>distributed in another medium? Would you prefer that, instead of
>>sending a file to a friend, I just sent him to hyperlink.. Wasting
>>everybody's time?
>
>Actually, sending a link, instead of a file, is probably an improvement; if
>the friend decides not to play the game, he's not downloading it. Email is
>not a file transfer medium, and shouldn't be used as one.
What? But Microsoft told me that most people PREFER to have word
documents sent otthem instead of stupid polaibn text email, and that
sending multi-megabyte attachments unsolicited was a sign of
affection!
L. Ross Raszewski
>> Go read the US law on copyright.
>
>We all agree on what the copyright says.
>We just don't agree that putting a work to public download means
>loosing control of this part of the copyright protection.
>I think it would take hard evidence for any of us to change their
>opinions.
We clearly don't agree on what the copyright law says, because you keep
insisting this second bit, which copyright law *does not* allow.
L. Ross Raszewski
>From this, many people assumed I was trying to make a CD and sell it
>for a profit; the same way that people were thinking that I would
>charge for the database access in some way. The replies to the
>copyrights were valid, but I don't know where the personal ones about
>posting their work came from. I am not a good communicator I guess.
No. No one assumed you were trying to sell their games for profit. It
is *you* who can't get it out of your head that profit is somehow
relevant. It isn't. *You* made the claim that anyone who posted their
game to the IF-archive (or, indeed, by your logic, anyoen who made
thweir game available for free in any manner) had, in doing so, given
up any and all rights to control its distribution. You are completely
and totally wrongh about this, and can't seem to understand that.
*that's* what upsets people. Profit don't enter into it.
L. Ross Raszewski
<russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>At its root, copyright forbids you from repeating what someone says to
>you, or from writing what you have read. That puts copyright at odds with
>the First Amendment right from the start.
As I recall, there's something in copyright abot having to "fix" the
work before it's copyrighted, which originally meant putting pen to
paper. (I think this had the side effect that though a piece of music
was copyrighted, any particular performace of that music was not, but
a recording of a performance, otoh, was, and, indeed, was a disticnt
copyrighted entity from the sheet music.) WHich means that "what
someone says to you' is not inherently copyrighted.
Ice9
> Thus wrote kodrik <kod...@zc8.net>:
> >> It has nothing to do with availability, merely whether the work is subject
> >> to copyright. *ALL* works have an implicit copyright, which has to be
> >> *explicitly* revoked before the work becomes public domain. So, the only
> >> works you can *assume* to be freely redistributable are the ones stating
> >> 'This work has been placed in public domain.' or similar.
> >
> >I do not say that the work looses its copyright, just that you can
> >redistribute it.
> >
> >If you buy a copyright book you can turn arouns and resell it for a
> >profit, the author cannot do anything about it.
>
> I suspected there was some `Doctrine of First Sale'-thinking going on
> behind this.
>
> I think the (legal) difference between buying a book/getting it free
> and then selling it, and making a CD of software/etc. and selling it
> is that you make *copies* of software.
> The second you make a copy, copyright law gets involved.
>
> Yes, this is archaic and pretty silly (imo): saying you can have some
> bits but not copy them is kinda absurd (asking bits to not be copyable
> is like asking water to not be wet, as some say).
>
> ...and indeed one could say that this is a dangerous legal principle:
> some have argued that you need to make a `copy' of a program in order
> to run it (b/c it is `copied' from the hard drive to RAM, say), and
> thus (they draw some ridiculous conclusion).
>
So you are saying that computers can make internal copies that are
required for the computer to run? Just curious, because it allows an
interesting conclusion.
> That said, the rough consensus about software/computer stuff seems to
> be that you do need permission to do most anything with it, save run
> it or make a backup copy for yourself (and some try to take even that
> away).
> For instance, if you buy a copy of Microsoft Windows, you can't start
> printing CDs of it and giving them or selling them to your friends
> (they say).
>
Mmm, but here is an interesting possibility...Say that some one
downloads a piece of work straight to CD (Yes, an internal copy is
made, but you have seem to have already validated computers making
copies for internal function). No copy is made of this. This process
is repeated, and the person ends up with a large collection of CD's,
none of which are anything more than downloads, which you seem to have
authorised (But maybe not...if you need explicit authorisation then
the license must state that you can download it, non?). At which
point the argument about the book is more valid..each is a legally
acquired (if download is authorised) bit of software/whatever, which
you could, under the book analogy, sell if you felt like it.
Not that I think that this is a good idea, if the author intends
something to be free, then it should, regardless of laws, be passed on
for free. However, it seems to point out the problem with the system
as it stands, which is that the very act of downloading creates a
copy, so if you authorise downloading you are authorising a form of
copying, which can be used, as in the example above, to make multiple
copies. Of course this could be prevented by limiting each person to
one download, or to allowing only one copy for each person at any one
time (Though I am unsure of the legality of these moves..companies
have got into big trouble in some places over software licensing, so
this would need to be checked out).
However, Kodrik has a point, if someone does take the time, and in
fact money, to produce CD's for people, why should that person not be
re-imbursed the exact same amount that they have paid to produce/mail
that CD? They would not be making a profit, the game is not even
being sold, the cost would be that of a blank CD, postage and an
envelope. Why do you want people that are helping distribute your
game to run into debt by doing so (Before anyone suggests it I have no
intention of ever doing this!)? Anyone making a profit should be shot
of course, but that's another issue. <g>
<snip>
L. Ross Raszewski
>> Many games _do_ have licenses associated within. It's no different than
>> downloading a redhat distro and trying to make your own CD's and selling it.
>> It's protected software. It's free, but protected.
>
>Actually, you could download the red hat distro, add some elements to
>it, make a CD, and sell the new package.
>What it means, and it makes perfect sense, is that if you make a
>product readily available to the public, it can by redistributed by
>the public.
>Anybody can directly download redhat and make a CD from it, therefore
>I can ask you for $10 for the CD. You are not paying for Red Hat since
>you can have it for free, you are paying for the service that it took
>to get it to you.
*you* *are* *wrong*.
The *ONLY* reason you can do this is because *the GPL specifically
allows it*. It is not a matter of "since red hat gives it away free I
can give it away for profit", it's a matter of "since red hat
*specifically says I can sell their software for profit*, I can sell
it for profit."
>If an author puts a file on the archive, regardless of copyrights and
>licenses, it can be redistributed. The author retains its copyrights
>and its licenses remains valid (except the clauses that don't conflict
>with the first amendements). So eventought, the public can
>redistribute it and write external code for portability to that extent
>(like Frotz), they cannot modify it or sell its rights.
Now you're claiming that if I release a game, and say, explicitly "You
cannot redistribute this game without my permission", you still can?
>Are there authors out there with work on the archive who have a
>problem with someone putting the archive on a CD and selling it so it
>is feasible?
>I would really want to know where the problem lies.
THe license from Moments out of Time says "Persons wishing to [publish
the game, outside of a compilation of comp gameas] so must contact the
author first." If you asked permission to put my game on a
compilation of the archive, and sell it, if you were only going to
cover your own expenses, I'd say "yes". IF you were going to make a
modest profit, I'd ask you to send me a free copy, and I'd say "yes".
If I found out you'd gone and done it without asking me first, the
answer is no. And I'd gladly get together with all the other authors
who were equally pissed off to sue you, break your legs, piss in your
cheerios, or whatever we deemed apropriate.
You *DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT* to publish my game without asking me.
Branko Collin
19:08:36 +0100:
>If this stupid fucking argument (by you, kodrik, since everyone else seems
>to have understood by now) goes on any longer, I don't think I'll be
>uploading any further work to the archive but host it on my web site only.
You'll let one person have such a hold over you? Wow!
John W. Kennedy
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:21:09 -0000, Matthew Russotto
> <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >At its root, copyright forbids you from repeating what someone says to
> >you, or from writing what you have read. That puts copyright at odds with
> >the First Amendment right from the start.
>
> As I recall, there's something in copyright abot having to "fix" the
> work before it's copyrighted, which originally meant putting pen to
> paper. (I think this had the side effect that though a piece of music
> was copyrighted, any particular performace of that music was not, but
> a recording of a performance, otoh, was, and, indeed, was a disticnt
> copyrighted entity from the sheet music.)
Yes, there is. If nothing else, this is necessary to bring copyright
clearly into the realm of the definable.
> WHich means that "what
> someone says to you' is not inherently copyrighted.
If someone followed another person around like Boswell, there might be
some legal difficulties today in publishing without permission -- but I
rather fancy a copyright argument as such would fall under the heading
of "Nice try."
Tim Holt
kodrik
> and then selling it, and making a CD of software/etc. and selling it
> is that you make *copies* of software.
> The second you make a copy, copyright law gets involved.
Actually, I got the file by copying it from the archive to a medium.
This is the mean of transfer the author agreed to by putting it in the
archive.
So I can perfectly copy it to a CD or a hard drive. I can sell my
computer with the game in it or just the CD which holds the game.
Since I can download an infinite number of copies from the archive, I
can make an infinite number of CDs of it. The are mine exactly as if I
would have bought them. And I can transfer them to another party
howevere I want.
It's hard for me to explain becaue it seems obvious. I have to find
examples until one ticks with your mind, it's the same for every
product:
* I legally acquire a product that is a file fo free.
* I legally resell the unmodified product that is this same file on
any medium I wish.
If you are a writer and mail yours books for free to anyone that send
you their address, the people receiving the books can perfectly sell
them to someone else. They don't have to mail it, they can sell it
through a store, bundle them with other products and sell them, as
long as they don't modify the book or misrepresent it's content. And
there's nothing you the author can do about it unless you have a
signed contract between both parties.
Why would you think IF has a seperate legal statute?
Because people download them instead of getting them by mail? It just
makes it easier to get as many copy as you wish.
Because you transfer the files onto another medium. That is what you
are doing by downloading them.
> For instance, if you buy a copy of Microsoft Windows, you can't start
> printing CDs of it and giving them or selling them to your friends
> (they say).
You can perfectly resell the copy you own. If you buy 100 copies, you
can sell a 100 copies.
If Microsoft emails you one copy, you can make a CD and sell it.
If Microsoft gives you unlimited download of MS Windows from their
site, you can make as many CD as you want and sell them.
I don't understand why everyone here thinks that IF files are
different than any other product. The archive makes is so anyone can
legally acquire an unlimited number of files that they can
redistribute as they want, as long as they don't modify the files or
misrepresent the copyright. Being free doesn't make a difference.
WHy do you think works of IF are different than any other products?
kodrik
>
> * I buy a book and sell it at a profit.
> * I download a file, burn it to thousands of CDs, sell those at a profit.
I buy thoudands of copyright books and sell those at a profit. Are you
saying I can't do that?
With than archive I can legally acquire as many copies as I want, so I
can sell these copies I acquired, regardless of copyrights.
kodrik
> "kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote in message
> news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > I do not say that the work looses its copyright, just that you can
> > redistribute it.
>
> That's bullshit.
I've stated many times that your copyright will prevent anyone from
modifying your content or licensing it. You should read my posts.
Once someone acquires a product, any product, whether a book or a
file, they can resell it without your consent.
And if you give them an unlimited number of copy of your product, they
can resell that unlimited copy of your product. Your have reliquished
your rights to control distribution once you've put that files up for
unlimited downloads.
An unprotected file has no special legal status when compared to a
book, even if it's hard for some to accept it.
kodrik
> granted you that right already, you ask. And if the author says you can't
> distribute it, you fucking well don't distribute it. It's that simple. Ask
> any lawyer whose degree didn't come from the back of a cereal box.
That would mean that everytime a copyright product is sold, the
reseller has to request permission from the copyight owner.
Ebay would be out of business, there would be no bookstore.
Even a lawyer that comes out of a cereal box knows this, not many
people outside this community would state they need permission to
resell a product they acquired legally.
Matthew Russotto
L. Ross Raszewski <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:21:09 -0000, Matthew Russotto
><russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>At its root, copyright forbids you from repeating what someone says to
>>you, or from writing what you have read. That puts copyright at odds with
>>the First Amendment right from the start.
>
>As I recall, there's something in copyright abot having to "fix" the
>work before it's copyrighted, which originally meant putting pen to
>paper.
Yes, but this is easily evaded nowadays.
>(I think this had the side effect that though a piece of music
>was copyrighted, any particular performace of that music was not, but
>a recording of a performance, otoh, was, and, indeed, was a disticnt
>copyrighted entity from the sheet music.) WHich means that "what
>someone says to you' is not inherently copyrighted.
Unless they simultaneously record it. But in any case, the 1st
amendment argument is not weakened by limiting it to fixed media, since it
still restricts both speech (uttering the words may be a "public
performance" thereof) and the press.
And there's copyright laws covering unauthorized recordings of live
music nowadays, too.
kodrik
> "Gunther Schmidl" <gsch...@xxx.gmx.at>, you wrote on Mon, 28 Jan 2002
> 19:08:36 +0100:
>
> >If this stupid fucking argument (by you, kodrik, since everyone else seems
> >to have understood by now) goes on any longer, I don't think I'll be
> >uploading any further work to the archive but host it on my web site only.
>
> You'll let one person have such a hold over you? Wow!
Actually, someone else made a point that the archive was illegal.
Indeed, the archive isn't sue of the identity of the poster, so a user
is not 100% sure that the files are legitimately his.
So if I make a CD of the archive and sell it, an author could say, "I
never posted that file for public download" and then the CD can't be
sold with your file on it.
On the other hand, if you post that file on your site, then we can
download it, make a CD and sell it without any notifications.
So, you might want to put the file anonymously on on the archive and
not on your site, and pretend you don't know it's in the archive. It's
a bit extreme, especially that the main result is to prevent your work
from reaching a larger audience.
kodrik
>
> This game may not be redistributed on electronic media (diskette, CD-ROM,
> etc.) without the explicit written permission of the author.
>
> This game may not be sold at all without the explicit written permission
> of the author.
If such a license had any legal value, you wouldn't be able to resell
anything you own as most manufacturors would rather have only their
new products for sell.
Even OEM products can be broken up by the end-user and sold in pieces.
When you buy a computer from Dell, you can sell its pieces seperately
and sell them, eventough the license states you can't.
Those OEM license are meant for the top distributors with whom they
have a contract stipulating that they must abid by the restrictions of
the license.
They have no hold on end-users or resellers down a few levels.
Peter Seebach
kodrik <kod...@zc8.net> wrote:
>I do not say that the work looses its copyright, just that you can
>redistribute it.
But that's essentially saying it's lost copyright.
>If you buy a copyright book you can turn arouns and resell it for a
>profit, the author cannot do anything about it.
First sale principle; applies to physical media only, not copying.
When you make your hypothetical CD, you are *COPYING* the copyrighted
work, without express permission, and that's a violation.
IANAL, but you certainly aren't either.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Peter Seebach
>> * I buy a book and sell it at a profit.
>> * I download a file, burn it to thousands of CDs, sell those at a profit.
>I buy thoudands of copyright books and sell those at a profit. Are you
>saying I can't do that?
You *bought* those copies, you didn't *copy* them.
>With than archive I can legally acquire as many copies as I want, so I
>can sell these copies I acquired, regardless of copyrights.
You are intentionally being stupid.
ally
news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com:
>> Spot the difference:
>>
>> * I buy a book and sell it at a profit.
>> * I download a file, burn it to thousands of CDs, sell those at a
>> profit.
>
> I buy thoudands of copyright books and sell those at a profit. Are you
> saying I can't do that?
Well,... you can't buy a single copy of a copyrighted book, print a
thousand copies of that "master", and sell _those_ at a profit. Not
legally, I mean.
> With than archive I can legally acquire as many copies as I want, so I
> can sell these copies I acquired, regardless of copyrights.
Mmh.
But what _are_ copyrights about, then--if not the author's right to
specify/control how exactly hir work may be copied? Did that right expire
post-transfer? Did you somehow acquire it in the process?
Sorry, I am permanently trapped in ally wishywashy misinformed blah mode.
Could you (Kodrik) please point me at something that's online, credible,
and supporting your stance that
> Your have reliquished your rights to control distribution once you've
> put that files up for unlimited downloads.
[quoting another post of yours found nearby]
?
It would, after all, make a substantial number (read: I haven't got a clue
how many) of freeware license agreements null & void.
Oh, I do think it'd be a good idea to open the IF-Archive (or a Best-Of
compilation) to the net-deprived for a nominal fee. Obviously, that's
going to require the authors' consent; whoever attempts to do the IF-
Community a favour of this kind should probably respect their its wishes,
no matter how legally enforcible they are. But I suspect this has become
one of those for-the-sake-of-it type discussions that I never get. ...
~ally
Peter Seebach
Matthew Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>At its root, copyright forbids you from repeating what someone says to
>you, or from writing what you have read. That puts copyright at odds with
>the First Amendment right from the start.
Not really. The FA only says you can say whatever you want - it doesn't say
you're allowed to use someone else's words to say it.
Ben Haines
> Actually, I got the file by copying it from the archive to a medium.
> This is the mean of transfer the author agreed to by putting it in the
> archive.
> So I can perfectly copy it to a CD or a hard drive. I can sell my
> computer with the game in it or just the CD which holds the game.
> Since I can download an infinite number of copies from the archive, I
> can make an infinite number of CDs of it. The are mine exactly as if I
> would have bought them. And I can transfer them to another party
> howevere I want.
Dammit, I was going to killfile this thread, but there's this little
masochistic voice inside me that just wants to scream "KODRICK! WHY ARE
YOU ON CRACK!?"
Copyright governs the production and use of copies of a piece of work.
"Copy". "Right". Copyright.
For music, performance is a type of copy, as is a physical copy of the
sheet music, as is a physical copy (recording) of the source. If you buy
a commercial CD, you cannot distribute copies of it on ANY medium. unless
it is covered by a license that specifically allows you to do so.
Technically, you might not even be able to make a copy for personal use --
but that's a fuzzy area, and no-one is likely to prosecute you over it.
For programs, any time you physically write the bits and bytes of the
program from one location to another, without deleting the original, YOU
ARE MAKING A COPY.
"Copy". "Right". Copyright.
The license agreement for Windows specifically prohibits you from
duplicating the install CDs. This includes posting the files to an FTP
site, as well as burning copies at home. You paid for ONE (1) COPY of the
program, and that's all you get. You have no RIGHTS to make any more
COPIES.
The license agreements for most of the games on the IF archive give
permission to the user to make copies of the game file for personal use.
That is, you have the RIGHT to make a COPY, as long as you're using it
yourself.
Some games, like Heroine's Mantle, explicitly grant you the RIGHT to make
multiple COPIES, and even to distribute them. I have yet to encounter a
game that give you the RIGHT to *sell* those COPIES, without the
permission of the author.
You have *exactly* those RIGHTS concerning COPIES that the author of the
work chooses to give you in the notice of COPYRIGHT. It doesn't matter if
the game is on an FTP site, on a CD, is brought over to your house by your
friend Bob, or is delivered by carrier pigeon.
With the exception of some provisos concerning small parts of a work
covered by fair use (quotes for a review, for example) and a loose
exception concerning parodies the following sentence applies to all work
not in the public domain:
You cannot COPY the latest Steven King novel, you cannot COPY an article
in an academic journal, you cannot COPY a file downloaded from an FTP
archive, you cannot do this by ANY means--digital, Xerox, cuneiform,
plaster casting, whatever--except as such RIGHTS are explicitly granted to
you by the author of the work in question, or their legal representation
in such matters.
"Copy". "Right". Copyright.
Selling your microwave, a used book, a single copy of a CD (except, I
believe, part of the Windows license agreement forbids you to sell your
copy unless you are an authorized vendor) does not involve making COPIES
and is thus not governed by COPYRIGHT and is thus totally irrelevant to
this discussion.
> WHy do you think works of IF are different than any other products?
They aren't. They are *exactly* the same as all other copyrighted work.
You have certain RIGHTS governing the making of COPIES, and those RIGHTS,
unless specifically stated otherwise, do not include the RIGHT to
make, sell or distribute those COPIES, by any means, *regardless* of where
the original work came from.
Clear enough?
OK, I feel better. *Now* I can killfile this thread...
-b.h.
Ben Haines
No, you can't. You can legally acquire such COPIES as are provided for in
the COPYRIGHT of the work in question--and you can deal with them *only*
in accordance with such RIGHTS as are given to you by the author. You
accept these terms by your possession of the copy.
If the game says "you may make a copy, but you may not sell it" then you
may *make* a copy but not *sell* it. Full stop.
If a game in the archive had a COPYRIGHT saying that no COPIES were to be
made, for any reason, at any time, then you would be *breaking the law* by
downloading it.
Just like you are *breaking the law* by downloading a copy of Windows 2000
from your friendly local Warez site.
Do you understand the latter case?
The same rules apply to ANY copyrighted work, including Interactive
Fiction.
-b.h.
Ben Haines
> in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos), you wrote on Mon, 28 Jan
> 2002 12:28:56 GMT:
>
>>Fuck, I shouldn't need to teach Merkins their own fucking language.
>
> The fucking language does not have words and cannot be used on the
> internet.
>
> Does Hoekstra Publishers sell fucking works?
>
If they do, then Kodrik can burn a CD of them and sell them for sure.
-b.h., who wonders if the Kama Sutra is in the public domain
Ben Haines
>>>
>>> It's not OUR fucking language; we got it from the English. We really
>>> would have preferred Russian, but none was available at the time.
>>
>>You could've switched when you bought Alaska <g>.
>
> Switching over the legacy systems in the other states would have busted
> the budget.
Besides, didn't they speak Chuchkchee up there anyway? I hear the
*Russians* can't even understand those folks.
-b.h.
Ben A L Jemmett
No they can't. Software sold with an OEM system can only be sold on with
that system, because you haven't paid the full amount for that software;
you've acquired the OEM's restricted license. Some licenses legally
restrict your right to sell the software; I cannot sell my copy of NetWare
to anyone without transferring the license first through Novell, because the
software is serialised. And they *have* prosecuted people and extracted
damages for license violation in the past, which is why eBay no longer carry
auctions for many Novell products.
These things *are* legal, and *are* enforcable, even if you think you can go
around ignoring any and all laws as you see fit.
--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)
David Thornley
>documents sent otthem instead of stupid polaibn text email, and that
>sending multi-megabyte attachments unsolicited was a sign of
>affection!
>
If they're plain, harmless, multimegabyte attachments, it's
an indicator that you're just friends.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Mike Roberts
> An unprotected file has no special legal status when
> compared to a book, even if it's hard for some to
> accept it.
A file on the IF Archive does indeed have the same legal protection as a
book: you are not permitted to make copies of either of them without
permission from the copyright holder.
This argument over whether or not you have the right to do what you will
with a copy you have downloaded is missing the point. The question is
whether or not you are legally permitted to download a copy from the IF
Archive in the first place: in the act of downloading, you make a copy, and
it is illegal to make a copy without permission from the copyright holder.
Some messages in this thread have taken for granted that if an author
uploads a file to the Archive, the author obviously intends to allow anyone
to download it. This is a misconception; the presence of a file is in the
IF Archive does not grant anyone the right to download it. For example, I
hope it is obvious that if someone uploaded Microsoft Office to the Archive,
it would be illegal for you to download it. (It also would be illegal to
have uploaded it to begin with, but that's beside the point; it's still
separately illegal for you to download it.)
So, you ask, why would anyone put their game in the IF Archive and then
prohibit you from downloading it? Well, the answer is usually that the
author *does* want to allow you to download the game, but only under certain
conditions, which are laid out in something typically called a License
Agreement. The Gnu General Public License, or GPL, neatly explains the
theory of a software license; to paraphrase, the logic is thus:
1. This work is copyrighted.
2. Because of (1), no one may copy the work without explicit permission from
the author.
3. This license grants explicit permission to make copies to *certain
persons only*; specifically, to any person who agrees to abide by *all*
terms of this license.
4. No one is required to accept this license, but since this license is the
only thing that grants permission to make copies, anyone who fails to agree
to the entire license is prohibited by law from making copies.
Most files on the IF Archive include a license that specifies the conditions
under which the author permits using the file. *This* is what gives you the
right to download the file from the IF Archive - not the file's presence in
the Archive, but the author's explicit, written permission as granted
through the license. Some authors, as part of those license terms, say
things such as "do not put this file on a CD and sell it" or "don't play
this game on Tuesdays." You might find the terms illogical or stupid; if
so, you can refuse to accept the license, because nothing is forcing you to
agree to it. But if you don't agree to abide by the terms of the license,
then it's illegal for you to make copies of the file and thus illegal for
you to download it from the Archive, so any questions about what you may do
with the file after you download it are irrelevant.
--Mike
David Thornley
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>In article <3c548f52...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>Branko Collin <col...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>Look at it this way - no court will ever take your side if you sue people
>for responding to you on Usenet.
>
Are you sure about that? I'm not. I'm not worried about it, mind you,
but if you were to sue somebody (for what?) you might win. I really
doubt you'd recover legal expenses, so I don't think it would be worth
it.
>>Also, even if quoting is legal, collecting postings in Google's
>>archive is probably not. Although the fact that nobody ever seems to
>>have sued Deja or Google over this seems to point out that people
>>generally do not care. Which is not the same as making it legal, but
>>you knew that.
>
>I'm not sure. There's some fuzzy ground with intentional broadcast
>distribution. Essentially, no one would object to you running an open
>usenet server, and no one would object if you never expired articles, so
>it's not clear they can object if you make it searchable.
>
This seems to me to be getting on the Kodrik slope. Since my Usenet
posts are copyrighted as they are written, and since I never put any
sort of license on them, I'm not giving away any rights. (I never
put a copyright notice on them, so I'm giving up some right to sue
for certain things, I guess, but that's something else that doesn't
bother me.) I've seen an alternative theory, that by posting to
Usenet I myself am causing all sorts of copies to appear automatically
on news servers.
Anyway, it doesn't look to me like that is the same as allowing
the posting to be searched for in an archive. If we adopt the
theory of the last paragraph, the person causing the copy to
appear in a Google Groups search isn't me. In any case, it
seems to me that my permission is limited to that in a conventional
news server, not a self-styled archive.
After all, if I were to display a copyrighted piece of art so that
the public could easily see it, that doesn't mean I'm giving
anybody permission to copy it.
Ben Haines
> Yes, this is archaic and pretty silly (imo): saying you can have some
> bits but not copy them is kinda absurd (asking bits to not be copyable
> is like asking water to not be wet, as some say).
>
> ...and indeed one could say that this is a dangerous legal principle:
> some have argued that you need to make a `copy' of a program in order
> to run it (b/c it is `copied' from the hard drive to RAM, say), and
> thus (they draw some ridiculous conclusion).
As I understand it, the copying of an active program into RAM is generally
considered to be fair use; it's an odd case of fair use because it's
essentially a duplication of the entire work and not a small portion, but
RAM is ephemeral enough that its contents can neither be viewed, sold, nor
otherwise exploited in such a way as to effectively infringe on the
copyright holder's control over the right of reproduction.
> That said, the rough consensus about software/computer stuff seems to
> be that you do need permission to do most anything with it, save run
> it or make a backup copy for yourself (and some try to take even that
> away).
Yeah, the idea is that modern media doesn't degrade, so the only reason
you could have to make a backup is to sell/distribute it. But tell that
to the person who just stepped on their Windows CD... *snap* Or who
downloaded a driver from a company who's since gone out of business, then
reinstalled the OS and lost the original file.
> However, outside of businesses, people generally copy bits without
> a second thought. Speed limits and drug laws (esp. alcohol) aside,
> bit-copying regulations are probably the most disregarded laws around,
> which to me says something about their validity/weight.
That says something to me too, but it's about the lack of respect people
generally have for intellectual property. Except, of course, for those
people who are *creating* it in the first place.
Just 'cause everybody does it, doesn't make it right (as my grandpa used
to say).
-b.h.
Gunther Schmidl
> If Microsoft gives you unlimited download of MS Windows from their
> site, you can make as many CD as you want and sell them.
Oh sure. I'll just go buy that MSDN Unlimited for $3000, which gives me
unlimited access to all Microsoft products and then start burning and
reselling them. I'm SURE that's legal, and I can make a ton of money off it,
too!
Not.
At least think about what bullshit you're posting before you post it.
-- Gunther
Gunther Schmidl
> download it, make a CD and sell it without any notifications.
Ok, I'm giving up. You're either too stupid to understand, or you simply
want to go on arguing for the sake of it.
I hereby forbid you to ever download or duplicate any of my games for
whatever reason.
*plonk*
-- Gunther