the ultimate IF archive

1 view
Skip to first unread message

M Burnham

unread,
Jan 25, 2002, 7:24:09 AM1/25/02
to

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

unread,
Jan 25, 2002, 11:28:21 PM1/25/02
to
M Burnham wrote:

>
> 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

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 12:36:03 AM1/26/02
to
"M Burnham" <sirk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 2:10:14 PM1/26/02
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 2:40:16 PM1/26/02
to
> 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.
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

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 5:10:43 PM1/26/02
to
"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.

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

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 7:48:17 PM1/26/02
to
kodrik <kod...@zc8.net> wrote:
>> 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

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 9:40:59 PM1/26/02
to
In article <a2vioh$775$1...@news.panix.com>,
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

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 9:56:58 PM1/26/02
to
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:10:43 -0600, David A. Cornelson <daveatiflibrarydotcom> wrote:
>"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

unread,
Jan 26, 2002, 11:52:02 PM1/26/02
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 12:03:25 AM1/27/02
to
In article <269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com>,

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 12:04:37 AM1/27/02
to
>Most people fit this category, and it's not fair not to make it easily
>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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 12:47:51 AM1/27/02
to
>If an author puts a file on the archive, regardless of copyrights and
>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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 1:16:11 AM1/27/02
to
> Further, this is in no way a freedom of speech issue unless you are
> 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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 1:24:02 AM1/27/02
to

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 3:04:53 AM1/27/02
to
>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).

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 3:06:08 AM1/27/02
to
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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 3:06:49 AM1/27/02
to

>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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 4:19:58 AM1/27/02
to
ad...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote in message news:<a306e2$1dt$1...@news.fsf.net>...

> 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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 4:28:05 AM1/27/02
to
"kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote in message
news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com...
> 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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 4:48:27 AM1/27/02
to
"kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote in message
news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com...
> ad...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote in message
news:<a306e2$1dt$1...@news.fsf.net>...
> > It is not in the public domain.
>
> 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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 4:58:40 AM1/27/02
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 5:50:22 AM1/27/02
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 8:10:57 AM1/27/02
to
"kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 8:17:36 AM1/27/02
to
"M Burnham" <sirk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 8:25:42 AM1/27/02
to
Gunther Schmidl <gsch...@xxx.gmx.at> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 8:43:14 AM1/27/02
to

"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'. 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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 8:49:27 AM1/27/02
to

"kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote in message
news:269806b2.02012...@posting.google.com...

> 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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 10:58:41 AM1/27/02
to
Kodrik:

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 11:53:33 AM1/27/02
to
>I agree, your work is not part of the public domain, just your file is
>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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 11:55:07 AM1/27/02
to
>It is not being arrogant to state your opinion, especially if you
>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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 2:25:03 PM1/27/02
to
In article <3c53b4f0$0$79561$3c09...@news.plethora.net>,

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?
>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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 2:48:31 PM1/27/02
to
kod...@zc8.net (kodrik), you wrote on 27 Jan 2002 02:50:22 -0800:

>> 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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 2:48:32 PM1/27/02
to
kod...@zc8.net (kodrik), you wrote on 27 Jan 2002 01:58:40 -0800:

>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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 2:48:31 PM1/27/02
to
"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.

>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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 2:48:32 PM1/27/02
to
ad...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton), you wrote on Sun, 27 Jan 2002 05:47:51
+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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 2:48:33 PM1/27/02
to
sirk...@hotmail.com (M Burnham), you wrote on Sun, 27 Jan 2002
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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 2:31:12 PM1/27/02
to
>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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 3:04:50 PM1/27/02
to
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.

kodrik

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 3:24:41 PM1/27/02
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 3:39:40 PM1/27/02
to
>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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 4:05:58 PM1/27/02
to
>We just don't agree that putting a work to public download means
>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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 4:32:48 PM1/27/02
to
>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.

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 5:26:17 PM1/27/02
to
"kodrik" <kod...@zc8.net> wrote in message
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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 6:41:14 PM1/27/02
to
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach), you wrote on 27 Jan 2002 20:04:50
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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 9:37:33 PM1/27/02
to
In article <3c548f52...@news.xs4all.nl>,

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 9:59:54 PM1/27/02
to
> 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:

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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 10:09:46 PM1/27/02
to

"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

unread,
Jan 27, 2002, 10:25:05 PM1/27/02
to
In article <3c54c...@news.iprimus.com.au>,

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

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 1:28:52 AM1/28/02
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 2:16:25 AM1/28/02
to

"Adam Thornton" <ad...@fsf.net> wrote in message
news:a32gah$n26$1...@news.fsf.net...


Strangely, I feel much better.

-mattF


Nils Barth

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 2:45:27 AM1/28/02
to
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).

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

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 7:28:56 AM1/28/02
to
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.

Fuck, I shouldn't need to teach Merkins their own fucking language.

Richard

Bernard El-Hagin

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 7:49:56 AM1/28/02
to
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:28:56 GMT, Richard Bos
<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

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 7:56:21 AM1/28/02
to
On 26 Jan 2002 20:52:02 -0800, kod...@zc8.net (kodrik) annoyed nearly
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

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 8:08:40 AM1/28/02
to
"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.

> 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

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 9:04:52 AM1/28/02
to
David Glasser <ne...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> Actually, I was 13. Of course, VirtuaTech sucked

Actually, you are wrong.

http://www.igs.net/~tril/if/best/#virtuatech


-markm

Branko Collin

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 9:35:46 AM1/28/02
to
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?

Branko Collin

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 9:35:45 AM1/28/02
to
"mattF" <lust_fo...@hotmail.com>, you wrote on Mon, 28 Jan 2002
03:09:46 GMT:

>"Branko Collin" <col...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>news:3c5452f7...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> 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:

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

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 10:04:29 AM1/28/02
to
In article <a2vpbr$pec$2...@news.fsf.net>, Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net> wrote:
>In article <a2vioh$775$1...@news.panix.com>,

>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.

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

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 10:11:34 AM1/28/02