> I have come upon some very disturbing news. It seems a cdrom company
> has seen fit to lift many, if not all, the FAQs from news.answers
> , sci.answers and other FAQ repositories, and place them on a
> CDrom without the author's permissions. It looks like the first battle
> over copyright on the Internet is on.
This is fair use. A CD-ROM is really just a very fast ftp site (it's fast
because you get all of it in your mailbox at once instead of having to
transfer it bit by bit). If you allow your FAQ's to be freely distributed
by ftp, www, gopher, wais, USENET, etc, then CD-ROM distribution is yet
another way of distributing FAQ's.
If you claim that the CD-ROM people are making money off your work, then
you are misguided. The charges are for distribution only. Divide $39.95
by, what, 1000+ FAQ's, and they are making a pittance on each one,
compared to what people pay for USENET feeds every single day.
All net access costs someone, somewhere, money. Just because most people
don't see the cost doesn't mean its not there. In fact, here in Australia
the Internet authorities will be introducing volume charging very soon, so
everytime I ftp a FAQ from then on, I will be paying someone who isn't the
FAQ maintainer money to read the FAQ. So, will all FAQ maintainers stop
distributing their FAQ's just because someone is making money off the
bytes they are written on? Of course not. When volume charging comes
into effect, I may find it cheaper to get CD-ROM's rather than waste my
money on ftp traffic.
This debate continually comes up in the PC groups in reference to the
SimTel and garbo collections that are available on CD-ROM. People also
whine continually about USENET being distributed on CD-ROM. Anyone who
objects to this kind of distribution doesn't understand Copyright in a
medium such as USENET as far as I'm concerned. This kind of distribution
is fair use and is merely an alternative way of doing what normally
happens with ftp, USENET, etc.
Now, if the CD-ROM people were distributing just your FAQ and no others,
or a "Best FAQ's of USENET" selection, then you may have a case. But, as
I understand it, they are selling the _whole collection_, not the
individual FAQ's. The only people who may have a case are those who
maintain the FAQ collections via ftp.
I would have thought that FAQ maintainers would want their work
distributed as far and wide as possible so that everyone, especially
newbies who purchase the CD-ROM, can benefit and be educated. Maybe I
don't understand the true purpose of FAQ's after all? CD-ROM distribution
is certainly cheaper per FAQ than ftp and USENET distribution, when you
weigh up the true costs. But, if you want to withdraw your FAQ from
USENET completely, I won't stop you.
Note: I am not affiliated with the CD-ROM company in any way. If you want
more information on why restricting CD-ROM distribution is silly, then
talk to Keith Petersen at SimTel. I believe there is even a FAQ on SimTel
which explains his position.
Cheers,
Rhys.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved