Article-I.D.: ccivax.330
Posted: Wed Oct 30 20:46:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 12:24:55 EST
References: <299@ccivax.UUCP> <3251@nsc.UUCP> <2416@mnetor.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 121
Xref: linus net.micro.pc:5489 net.micro.atari:1486 net.micro.mac:3224

Keywords:ASCAP

If the top part of this article is redundant, read the bottom half.

[color=blue]>  In article <3251@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:[/color]
[color=teal]>> In article <299@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes:[/color]
[color=teal]>> If you spend 25 man years making thing, and[/color]
[color=teal]>> someone else borrows your design, does it in 5 man years[/color]
[color=teal]>> Business needs to be[/color]
[color=teal]>> able to protect its R&D or R&D simply won't get done.[/color]

The "Desk-top" represents only a small fraction of both systems. DRI
produced a "GKS/VDI" interface even before the Mac was released.
Agreed, Apple should recieve something for their contribution, but are
lawsuits the best way to get it?

[color=blue]>  There is no such thing as a "visual copyright" per se.[/color]

[color=blue]>  Copyright law can be semi-effective for things like ROM code (eg. Apple[/color]
[color=blue]>  vs. Franklin, Apple II ROMs) but as people such as Compaq have shown,[/color]
[color=blue]>  you can still get around it.[/color]

[color=royalblue]>>>  I see Apple's possiveness of "Pull Down Menus" and[/color]
[color=royalblue]>>> such as a little like trying to Trademark each letter of the alphabet[/color]
[color=royalblue]>>> and expecting to collect royalties.[/color]

[color=teal]>> That is an easy statement to make, I'd love to see[/color]
[color=teal]>> you back it up with a good reason.[/color]

[color=blue]>  The problem is that there is no effective protection for algorithms in[/color]
[color=blue]>  software.  Patent law expressly excludes them (unless you created[/color]
[color=blue]>  special purpose hardware to implement them) and copyright law only[/color]
[color=blue]>  protects their "form" (be it human readable or machine readable).[/color]
[color=blue]>  That's why Compaq (in the IBM PC world) can rewrite the IBM ROM code[/color]
[color=blue]>  without fear of retribution.[/color]

[color=royalblue]>>> Patent, Trademark, and Copywright laws were designed to promote creativity.[/color]
[color=royalblue]>>> In fact, the current laws, as used and interpreted by the computer industry[/color]
[color=royalblue]>>> are being used to stifle creativity.[/color]
[color=teal]>> [/color]
[color=teal]>> Can you prove that?[/color]

[color=blue]>  Apple is proving it for us.  Granted Apple was responsible for some[/color]
[color=blue]>  neat innovations (like the Quickdraw ROMs), and *appearance* of some of[/color]
[color=blue]>  the icons, etc.  But consider that:[/color]
[color=blue]>  	1. It has all been done before.[/color]
[color=blue]>  	2. GEM is similiar but is not (by any means) a complete[/color]
[color=blue]>  	   ripoff of the Mac.[/color]

[color=teal]>> If GEM had set up an agreement with Apple, they wouldn't be IN this[/color]
[color=teal]>> position. They just took. [/color]
To give DRI the benefit of the doubt, assume that DRI didn't know that
they were copying a protected "functionality".  Assume that they believed
they were makeing sufficient changes to avoid a lawsuit.  Apple sends a
notice saying they want $200/copy (anybody know the figure?). DRI only
charges $50/copy, and offers $2/copy.  Apple sues.

[color=blue]>  George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd.[/color]

My backround is in performing arts management, music, dance, theater.
There are an incredible number of parellels.  Around the turn of the
century, music composers and publishers saw the phonograph and radio as
a threat to profitability.  There are "subroutines" in music such as
"12 bar boogie" which were difficult to protect with the usual
copyright laws, because different melodies could be played over the
basic accompanyment.  In fact, there are over 200 "Jazz Constructs"
which have the same basic protection problems as software.

Rather than spend small fortunes in the courts, the American Society of
Composers Arrangers and Publishers (ASCAP) was formed.  When radio and
international broadcasting created a similar threat to "R&D", Broadcast
Music International (BMI) was formed.  These organizations serve as
"Central Clearing Houses" for royalty distribution.  In restaurants,
disco's, and theaters (or wherever music is played commercially), a
basic monthly fee is paid directly to ASCAP or BMI, usually around $250
to $500 per month.  When recorded media is sold, the publisher pays
ASCAP or BMI.  Both organizations co-operate with each other so the
author gets royalties either way.  The subscriber keeps a log of what
he plays and sends that in with his payment.  Each publisher, composer,
and arranger recieves royalties.

In this way, if an "easy listening" arrangement is made from a former
"Top 40" seller, the Arranger, Composer, and Publisher of both the
original and the easy listening version get royalties, even though
the courts would probably not enforce a "Copyright Suit".

A publisher/composer has "exclusive use" to the work for a certain
period of time, though he still pays a standard "subroutine royalty"
in case the "new release" uses one of them.  Unpaid royalties go
to a pension fund.

The formula for royalty distribution is quite complex, even the
payment schedule is a little wierd, but it does provide a very
profitable and democratic means of rewarding creative effort.

Similar arrangements have been made by the video cassette and
film producers/publishers.  Even the unions are involved in this
distribution process.  Notice that ASCAP circumvented the need
for unionization of music writers.

One of the reasons that the current Copyright, Trademark, and
Patent laws are still so unclear for the software industry
is that other industries have chosen other avenues which
are more cost/effective that the courts.


There exists an organization, the Software Publishers Association, which
appears to be investigating a similar role in the software arena.
Currently, there are a few companies which are reluctant to participate,
but I would encourage BBS sysops, "Share-ware" authors, even "Public
Domain" authors to get involved in this or any similar efforts taking
place.  Other organizations to "lobby" might be ADAPSO, IEEE, or ACM.

The alternative is to depend on "Trade Secrets" and a fickle court system
and a lot of heavy paranoia along with "copy protection" systems that can
do anything from make an otherwise useful program useless to wiping out
entire hard disk drive file systems.

This is Rex Ballard, I've been moved to
..!ccivax!ccitv2!rb

We are trying to get "remote file system postnews" to work on ethernet,
until this happens I have to post as guest.