Legally, it appears that Walnut Creek is on very shaky ground. Nor
have they responded well to the legitimate concerns of the authors of
the works they are distributing (let alone _anticipating_ these
concerns). But I ask you, as open-minded net.citizens, to consider
Walnut Creek as a vector for our FAQs, rather than as a predator upon
them.
Some salient facts:
* Walnut Creek's compilations are available online -- ie _for free_
if you happen to have free net access. (Find the controversial
compilation here: <URL:ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/internet/>.)
* to gather all the information available on one of the Walnut Creek
CD-ROMs, a subscriber to a commercial net.service would have to pay
_significantly more_ than the price of the CD-ROM.
* even the precious-our-copyright GNU group allows its wares to be
distributed by Walnut Creek (although presumably with more
consultation than we've received)
Walnut Creek _is_ providing a service to the community, a service to
those who don't have a free internet connection, and may have no
internet connection _at all_. They are not editing your work, or
claiming it as their own. They are performing a service similar to
many anon-FTP site maintainers.
I believe that it is the medium that they distribute their information
through that is causing such uproar: the fact that a CD-ROM is a more
concrete medium than the abstract ones that commonly consitute 'net
media. Would there have been less outcry if they'd been distributing
on floppies or on tape? (Both of which would be expensive than a
CD-ROM distribution.) How about a dial-in service? or access to one
net.site, and no other net.resources? I believe the medium should be
irrelevant -- it is the use of the medium that should be the issue.
The Walnut Creek CD-ROM extends the reaches of the 'net, albeit in a
limited and tardy form, allowing more people access to its information
resources.
It cannot be the cost of their service that we take umbrage at, even
if they do make a profit -- consider again the price a
commercially-subscribed net.citizen would have to pay to download all
the information provided on a Walnut Creek CD-ROM.
The only other issue I can recall is that of currency -- the FAQs may
be slightly out-of-date if distributed through this medium -- but I
believe that with adequate pointers to sources of up-to-date
information (which Walnut Creek have belatedly promised to provide),
this should not be a worry.
Mike Meyer puts the whole argument more succinctly:
> Walnut Creek sells ACCESS, not information. They make no claims
> about what's on the CDROM, other than that it contains the contents
> of one or more archives that are freely available on the net. Walnut
> Creek and the ISPs both profit by making large collections of bytes
> more readily accessible. The only difference is the delivery media.
In conclusion: although Walnut Creek has managed this badly, and are
probably infringing _in law_, morally they are not the bugbear many
perceive them to be; we should not punish them for their mistakes and
rudeness, but leave the way clear for them to provide an important
service to the less well-connected net.members of the world.
.angus. (comp.graphics.animation FAQster)
-- angus@mega.cgl.citri.edu.au graphics/animation postgrad melbourne, australia
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved