Charging the net....

[Sean Casey]

Brad Templeton has a point, however I think it needs to be considered
in the light of intent.

It can be argued that executing a program is making a copy or a
derivative work (it must be copied into ram). The courts, however,
have ruled that it is a necessary step in the use of such a program
and don't constitute copying per-se. The courts have also modified
that view in the more recent context of networking, where it may be
possible to load onto more than one cpu at a time, even if only one
copy of the software is on disk.

If someone sticks shareware on my machine, it can be argued that it is
then mine, and that dearchiving and compiling it are *necessary steps*
in the use of such software, and that they don't constitute copyright
violation or imply any agreement towards a license.

I think the courts are no more likely to consider it a copyright
infringement than they would if I mailed you something shrink-wrapped
for free, and then said don't open it and use it if you're not going
to pay.

One has to understand that these cases are usually argued in the
greater context. The fact that copying occurs does not necessarily
mean that there is copyright infringement. Only the court can say it
is so. In this case, I feel the courts would decide in favor of the
shareware recipient and not the author.

I disapprove of the shareware concept because I don't like the idea of
someone sending me something unsolicited (or even putting it in a
public place where it is known people will copy it) and then telling
me what I can and can't do with it. I don't even care about the money
part.

Sooner or later some organization with deep pockets will take the
issue to court, and we'll see. Until then, the issue is not nearly as
cut and dried as Brad Templeton would have you believe. My bet is that
the courts will rule that such "implied licenses" are invalid (as they
have often ruled shrink wrap licenses are invalid) and that
dearchiving, compiling, or any other necessary step in its use does
not constitute copyright infringement.

"Grassroots" profiteering is NOT in the spirit of Usenet. Usenet has
been traditionally free. There is no Usenet tradition of binding
people to licenses and requiring payment. Traditionally, anything one
picked up from Usenet could be used without fear of litigation. I
don't want that to change.

Sean Casey
-- 
** Sean Casey  <sean at s.ms.uky.edu>