PCMag-ware

  • Thread starter Thread starter jo
  • Start date Start date
J

jo

What is the 'ware' status with regard to pcmag apps that are
obtainable elsewhere?
Is there a list anywhere?
Should there be? :-)
 
What is the 'ware' status with regard to pcmag apps that are
obtainable elsewhere?
Click to expand...

PCMag never gave anyone else the right to distribute them; their EULAs
always reserved to them alone the right distribute. The people who are
distributing them for free are infringing PCMag's copyrights.
 
PCMag never gave anyone else the right to distribute them; their EULAs
always reserved to them alone the right distribute. The people who are
distributing them for free are infringing PCMag's copyrights.
Click to expand...

Don't know if the term is used commonly, but when I talk to people I refer
to it as Magazineware: Software you can use for free if you buy a certain
magazine.
A bit more expensive than postcardware.:)
 
PCMag never gave anyone else the right to distribute them; their EULAs
always reserved to them alone the right distribute. The people who are
distributing them for free are infringing PCMag's copyrights.
Click to expand...

That's what they say now. But it seems to be untrue.
Read the story of prof Timo Salmi of UWasa.fi :-)
 
Some utilities are still available for free
download at certain sites.

ContextEdit Ver. 1.1 is at

http://www.ramlende.com/utilities.html


jo said:
What is the 'ware' status with regard to pcmag apps that are
obtainable elsewhere?
Click to expand...

If you mean, are they freeware...... the answer is no, not anymore
Is there a list anywhere?
Click to expand...

Only on the PC Mag site as far as I know
Should there be? :-)
Click to expand...

UTY ;o)

--

Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!
 
(e-mail address removed) (Gerard Bok) wrote in
That's what they say now. But it seems to be untrue.
Read the story of prof Timo Salmi of UWasa.fi :-)
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's clear that I was wrong, and that PC Mag did indeed give
permission for people to distribute them.

Prof. Salmi's log is at <ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/pcmagutl/pcmagutl.txt>,
and the PC Mag editor's post giving permission is archived at
<http://howardk.freenix.org/msgid.cgi?ID=109491208500> as well as at
Google Groups.

As Prof. Salmi points out, Ziff-Davis has the right to rescind the
permission, and they have done so (without even admitting that the
permission was given in the first place). Slimy, IMO.
 
jo said:
Oh yes...

I somehow doubt you are going to be adding URL's to D/L if and when
they turn up, though. :-)
Click to expand...

too true :) That would not be a Good Thing because:

1. It would be legally dubious at best. . .
2. I think Pcmag would arrive on the doorstep with a complaint.
3. I think Pcmag would also go after the offending URLs on the list.

ISTM that *posting* the URLs is unwise too (email is private).

JMHO

Susan
 
»Q« said:
Thanks. It's clear that I was wrong, and that PC Mag did indeed give
permission for people to distribute them.

Prof. Salmi's log is at
<ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/pcmagutl/pcmagutl.txt>, and the PC Mag
editor's post giving permission is archived at
<http://howardk.freenix.org/msgid.cgi?ID=109491208500> as well as at
Google Groups.

As Prof. Salmi points out, Ziff-Davis has the right to rescind the
permission, and they have done so (without even admitting that the
permission was given in the first place). Slimy, IMO.
Click to expand...

Prof. Salmi is wrong, owner of copyright cannot change a license for a
certain version after it has been released.

It is clear here that these utilities were released for free
distribution in 1994, and that can not be changed by later decisions.

"From: (e-mail address removed) (Robin Raskin)
Newsgroups: comp.archives.msdos.announce
Subject: PC Mag files on the Internet
Summary: Reposted by Keith Petersen
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 04:02:05 GMT
Followup-To: comp.archives.msdos.d
Sender: (e-mail address removed)
Organization: PC Magazine"

"Posting the PC Magazine utilities on the Internet is welcome. PC
Magazine utilities can be copied, but are copyrighted. You are free to
make copies and distribute the utilities to others provided no charge is
involved. Making copies or using any portion for commercial purposes is
prohibited."

PC Mag may ask people to not distribute them now, but they have no legal
right to demand it. If this was brought to court they would lose, no
doubts about that.

Only versions released after they retracted the license to freely
distribute them can be protected from free distribution.

This is such a clear case that no judge would even allow it to be taken
to court.
 
Gerard Bok wrote in said:
That's what they say now. But it seems to be untrue.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. Last time I looked over my pcmag collection, I
found they started adding a "no-distro" clause to their distributions
(zip) some time in 1998.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
 
Roger Johansson wrote in said:
Prof. Salmi is wrong, owner of copyright cannot change a license for a
certain version after it has been released.

It is clear here that these utilities were released for free
distribution in 1994, and that can not be changed by later decisions
Click to expand...

True, but as a ftp site admin, would you risk being taken to court,
given that going to court costs time and money no matter how right
you are?

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
 
It is clear here that these utilities were released for free
distribution in 1994, and that can not be changed by later
decisions.
Click to expand...

I believe that it can. Many such permissions explicitly reserve the
right of the copyright holder to withdraw permission, but I don't think
failure to explicitly reserve that right automatically waives it. But
IANAL.
 
True, but as a ftp site admin, would you risk being taken to court,
given that going to court costs time and money no matter how right
you are?
Click to expand...

We had a similar situation a while ago in the rapidq basic community.
The copyright owner wrote to several web sites and asked them to stop
distributing the rapidq compiler.

Several people refused obeying his request and rapidq can still be
distributed freely.

But of course you are right, it is up to the individual web/ftp site
admin if he is willing to take that risk.
 
I believe that it can. Many such permissions explicitly reserve the
right of the copyright holder to withdraw permission,
Click to expand...

In this case there were no such reservations in the text in which they
were declared freely distributible.
but I don't think
failure to explicitly reserve that right automatically waives it.
Click to expand...

You cannot take back a gift you have already given away.

To allow free distribution of freeware software is to give it as a gift
to the public. That gift cannot be taken back once it has been given.

It would be like Santa Clause would show up in February and demand that
you give the christmas presents back.

He did not say anything about that when he gave you the presents, but he
should still have the right to change his mind later, if I understand you
correctly. There is no court in the world that would agree with you on
that.
 
You cannot take back a gift you have already given away.

To allow free distribution of freeware software is to give it as a
gift to the public. That gift cannot be taken back once it has
been given.

It would be like Santa Clause would show up in February and demand
that you give the christmas presents back.
Click to expand...

Analogies to giving material goods away don't help much with copyright
infringement questions.
He did not say anything about that when he gave you the presents,
but he should still have the right to change his mind later, if I
understand you correctly.
Click to expand...

I did not say the copyright holder should have the right to withdraw
permission, but rather that I think the holder does have that right.
There is no court in the world that would agree with you on that.
Click to expand...

You've said that twice now. Are you a lawyer?
 
I did not say the copyright holder should have the right to withdraw
permission, but rather that I think the holder does have that right.
Click to expand...
You've said that twice now. Are you a lawyer?
Click to expand...


No, but I know enough about the subject.

I have participated in such disputes several times over many years, from
the end of the 80-ies, and have heard all kinds of arguments about it.

I have discussed with lawyers and other people who have legal training
many times.
 
Back
Top