Floppyshop 2/Floppyshop - 2.zip/Floppyshop - 2.iso/diskmags/0022-3.564/dmg-3313/news.txt/swslnews.asc

Text File | 1998-10-23 | 14KB | 252 lines

               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               ~  THE SOUTH WEST SOFTWARE LIBRARY CLOSES  ~
               ~                                          ~
               ~         A report by John Weller          ~
               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     The  South  West Software Library is to close after  seven  years  of
providing  an concientiousP.D service to the ST community.   This is as  a
direct  result of the Dorset Trading Standards Office raid on the  library
in January of this year.   (See STEN #9)  Martyn Dryden,  and Barbara  his
wife,  had become disillusioned with the increasingly commercial direction
that  the  ST P.D scene had been taking,  and the TSO raid was  the  final
straw for them.   Three years ago they had also been threatened with legal
action  by the Spears boardgame firm over a P.D version of the  'Monopoly'
game.   Although  many other libraries also stocked the  offending  title,
Martyn  decided  to  settle the matter out  of  court,  rather  than  face
punitive legal expenses.

     The  TSO  raid  had  been  made as  a  result  of  a  complaint  over
infringements  of commercial copyright,  and thirty-five discs were  taken
away  for  "further  investigations to be made."  The  discs  were  mainly
music demos,  although copies of the Timeworks' DTP and the Protext  demos
were  also  siezed.   A full list of these discs appeared in STEN #9.

     In the middle of April,  Martyn was interviewed by the Dorset TSO and
was  told that "the matter would be resolved in two to three  weeks."   He
has heard nothing further from them,  despite six weeks having  past.   To
say  that  both  he and his wife have been treated shoddily  would  be  an
understatement.  The following is his account of the TSO interview:


          "We  were interviewed today by the Dorset  Trading  Standards
   Department,  but  disappointingly,  nothing was resolved - the  case
   goes on.   The main purpose of the interview (which took place under
   legal caution,  and was tape-recorded in accordance with the  Police
   and  Criminal Evidence Act) was for the Trading Standards to ask  us
   questions about how we run the library.

          We  were  informed that we are being investigated  under  the
   Trades  Descriptions  Act and the Copyright Designs &  Patents  Act.
   However, as yet we have not been charged.

          A   large   part  of  the  interview  was  related   to   the
   distribution  of allegedly copyright material in the form  of  sound
   demos.   A sample of the discs siezed in the raid has been  examined
   by the British  Phonographic Institute which has  found  them  to be
   subject to copyright.

          We pointed out that these demos are only distantly related to
   the  original copyrighted music:  they are generally shorter and  of
   poorer  quality,  and have had additional material added to them  in
   the form of pictures and/or text by the demo creator.

          We were told that the BPI is concerned about the distribution
   of  sound demos because its members are losing royalties due on  the
   material.   We  explained that both the demo creator and  (normally)
   the demo consumer would already have bought the official product and
   paid  the royalties due.   No-one would buy a demo rather  than  the
   original:  the  purpose  of the demo is to enhance  and  extend  the
   enjoyment of the original.

          If the BPI does indeed wish to supress these demos,  at  this
   late stage after ignoring the issue for years,  then in our  opinion
   it  is  not  sensible to take piecemeal  action  against  individual
   libraries via their local Trading Standards departments.   Community
   Charge payers might well  object to supporting the  commercial music
   industry in this way.

          On the question of demo versions of commercial  software, the
   Trading  Standards  officers informed us that a complaint  had  been
   made by GST Holdings over the Timeworks DTP demo on disc  842.   GST
   has  never  released  a  demo version  of  this  programme  and  and
   therefore this disc is an infringement of copyright.   We  confirmed
   that  we  had never contacted GST to scertain whether the  disc  was
   indeed a PD demo version.

          However,   we   pointed  out  that  the  disc  concerned   is
   indistinguishable  from  a legitimate demo  version, judged  on  the
   criteria normally used by us and other PD libraries.   First, it was
   already in free circulation at the time we obtained it from  another
   library.   Second,  it  contains  a  document which  is  clearly  an
   advertising pitch by the publisher,  presenting the features of  the
   programme and and  putting forward its benefits to potential buyers.
   Thirdly,  it  contains no supporting material beyond what is  needed
   to retrieve and print this document.

          Naturally,  if  GST had contacted  us and/or other  libraries
   who  stock  this disc,  then we would have rectified  this  mistake.
   Again  it  appears  that local authority funds  are  being  used  to
   protect commercial interests.

          We asked why we are being,  as far as we could tell,  singled
   out  for this action.   After all,  we are only one of  about  forty
   libraries  supporting the ST (which in turn is only one  of  several
   models of  computer,  each with its own associated  community).   Of
   these,  we are by no means the largest, and unlike some libraries we
   do not specialise in demos:  we are primarily primarily utility  and
   applications oriented.

          The Dorset Trading Standards officer was not able to  comment
   on  what actions might,  or might not,  be taking place outside  the
   area.

          He did suggest that if we suspected that breaches of  alleged
   copyright were taking place elsewhere that we should inform him,  so
   that action could be taken.   But we felt that this was missing  the
   point and, and declined to do so."


       It appears that the Dorset Trading Standards department decided  on
punitive action, rather than warning the SWSL that they might be breaching
commercial copyright.   Are we at STEN alone in finding this heavy-handed,
incompetent and arrogant?

       STEN  originally  became interested in this case  after  hearing  a
rumour  from another P.D library that the TSO's action was "the result  of
something  they'd  read  in STEN."  I contacted  Mr  J  Sollies,  the  TSO
official responsible for the raid, on the 5th of March and was told by him
that we were *not* connected in any way with the raid.   After talking  to
him for some thirty minutes it became plain (indeed he freely admitted it)
that the TSO had no experience of computers,  computer software or of  the
P.D scene on any machine .

       I explained what P.D was,  how libraries obtained their programmes,
and  pointed out that they were *not* major  money-making  enterprises.  I
also  volunteered  to  help  if  any  further  background  information  or
explanations  were  needed.   I hoped that this might help to  defuse  the
situation.   The  following is the text of a letter I wrote to Mr  Sollies
on the 6th of March:


    Dear Mr Sollies,

                        Enclosed  is  a photocopy of a news item   from
   'ST Applications' magazine, issue 16, April 1992, which I  mentioned
   during our telephone conversation  yesterday.  'ST Applications'  is
   published by the ST Club, which is a Public Domain library and  user
   group for Atari ST enthusiasts.

                          I've   now   had   time   to   consider   our
   conversation, and one  thing that struck me was that you  might  not
   be entirely familiar with the  P.D concept,  and the particular form
   that it takes amongst ST users. Public Domain software is programmes
   that are written by individual enthusiasts  who theoretically retain
   the  copyright on  them  (to  guard  against anyone  selling them or
   altering them), but have placed the programmes  into   the    Public
   Domain.  This  means that the  programmes  may be freely copied  and
   passed on  to  anyone  who wishes to  use  them.    In  effect,  the
   programmer  has  relinquished any right to make a profit  from   the
   programme.

       P.D programmes were originally circulated by computer  clubs and
   individual  users,  but the  number  and range of these   programmes
   soon  became  so great that small  commercial  libraries    appeared
   which supplied the software to  users on receipt  of a small copying
   charge.  No-one  is  entitled to  make a profit  from the programmes
   themselves, but libraries are allowed to charge a reasonable copying
   fee  for supplying the programme.  Users  and  programmers send  new
   discs to the  libraries and  ask for another disc to be sent to them
   in return.  The reward for the programmer is to show his or her work
   to a larger audience, and  the library  benefits  by  expanding  its
   catalogue.

       The  point  I  am  trying  to make here is  that  Public  Domain
   libraries are only  one  small stage away  from the  enthusiasts who
   originate the programmes, and are still very much a part of the home
   computer users' 'scene'. No-one is making large profits from the P.D
   resource; it is written by and for  fellow  enthusiasts,   with  the
   libraries  acting  as  a  small-scale  commercial  intermediary. The
   Public Domain concept is still very idealistic, and the  majority of
   Atari  ST  users are concerned  that it should remain so, and should
   not be exploited commercially.

       With  regard  to  infringements  of copyright,  most responsible
   authors and librarians are concious of the fact that commercial copy
   right is  sometimes  infringed,  but  their attitude has always been
   that:

    (i) it is usually done out of enthusiasm for the original material,
        and that,

    (ii) the  degree of  illegality  is very different to, say,  poster
        hawkers who are selling  pirated  copies of copyrighted  photo-
        graphs.  Any  infringements  are  done  in a  spirit of play or
        enthusiasm, and certainly not out of any desire to make money.

       Several  librarians have said that there needs to be  a  greater
   awareness of how copyright law applies to the P.D scene,  and  I can
   think of several cases where  libraries  have decided not to include
   doubtful  discs in  their catalogues.  We  would  prefer to see this
   self-policing role continue, and believe that education, rather than
   punishment is what is needed.

       Most libraries would respond quickly to any  request  to  remove
   any  disc that  infringes a copyright,  as  was proved   when  Atari
   U.K Ltd recently circulated all ST P.D libraries  with   a  list  of
   programmes which were their property.  The  libraries were  asked to
   withdraw any of the  programmes that may have slipped   into   their
   catalogues, with the clear implication  that refusing to do so would
   result in legal action.

       The list was also sent to all ST magazines (commercial and  non-
   commercial) and the result was that all reputable libraries have now
   withdrawn  any of  the  programmes  that  may  have  mistakenly been
   included in their catalogues. The concensus is that this is the best
   way to approach the problem.

       If there is any further way in which I can help you, or if there
   are any points that you would like me to clarify, then please do not
   hesitate to contact  me.  My home no. is (XXX) XXX XXXX, and my work
   no. is (XXX) XXX XXXX.

                                        Yours faithfully, etc.



    The  last  that I have heard about this whole  unnecessary  affair  is
that  an un-named organisation is preparing to send a list of  'forbidden'
titles  to all P.D libraries.   It would thus appear that STEN has  had  a
moderating influence, but too late to be of benefit to the SWSL.

    The  question now is who was responsible for the  original  complaint?
We  have  spoken  to several reputable P.D librarians and  they  have  all
expressed  surprise  at the idea of the complaint having  originated  with
GST Holdings (the publishers of 1st Word Plus and Timeworks DTP).   As one
librarian  put it,  "No,  they're good people - they wouldn't do  anything
like  that."   Assuming  that GST *were* responsible,  then  how  did  the
British  Phonographic  Institute come to be involved?   And  why  did  the
Dorset  TSO  take such heavy-handed action without  first  contacting  the
SWSL for their view of the matter?   Presumably the information that  they
had  been given led them to believe that the matter was far  more  serious
than it actually was.

    Am  I  alone in smelling a rat here?   Let's assume for  the  sake  of
arguement  that  what *really* happened was that  a  malicious  individual
wished  to  cause trouble for the Drydens by making a complaint  and  then
exagerating  the seriousness of the matter.   This is pure speculation  of
course, but doesn't it make a lot more sense than the premise that GST and
the  BPI  for  some reason singled out the SWSL from among  the  many  P.D
libraries,  some  of  which *specialise* in demos and  sound  samples?

    If  anyone has any further information about this sordid  affair  then
we  would  like  to hear from you.   Anything that we  are  told  will  be
treated  in the strictest confidence and no-one,  repeat no-one,  will  be
identified  unless they wish to be.   For the sake of the  P.D  community,
it's time that the person or persons responsible are named.


                              ~~~~~eof~~~~~
s