[PL] 2004 Removals

[burnr]

I don't believe this has been formally brought up yet, and if it has,
I apologize.

I have seen some PC Magazine utilities nominated here. I love those
utils, and have been using them since way back in the 80s during the
good old days of DOS.
As most folks probably know by now, the PC Mag utilities were once
free, but now they are no longer available for free. One must
subscribe on the PC Mag website in order to get not only the new
utils, but even the old ones.

Some of the old ones are still available around the web. The problem
with this is that PC Mag's licenses for their utils specifically says
that they are not to be distributed. Here is the relevant boilerplate
from their license:

Ziff-Davis grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use
the source code distributed with PC Magazine utilities for
educational, non-commercial purposes only. Under no circumstances may
you distribute any unaltered or altered version of the Software
through any means, including, without limitation, personal bulletin
boards, ftp sites, retained.
CompuServe, the Web, floppy disk or other storage device, or under any
name, including without limitation, your name, Ziff-Davis' name or any
third party's name, nor may you distribute or market programs that
contain altered or unaltered portions of the Software's source code.


From this it seems pretty clear that even the older free versions of
PC Mag utils cannot be distributed except directly from PC Mag itself.
And for that, you need to pay.

So, I would think that all PC Mag utils are no longer freeware and
should be removed from the Pricelessware list and from all
nominations.

I hate to be a fly in the ointment here, but as an old retired
shyster, I am concerned about the legal ramifications to the
Pricelessware list if the PC Mag utils are retained.

I doubt there could be legal ramifications for PW as only "links to" are
provided and not downloads of the physical files (hence no distribution
by PW). Your point though is certainly valid and is why I do not archive
PC Mag apps. on Freeware4u.com

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

From this it seems pretty clear that even the older free versions
of PC Mag utils cannot be distributed except directly from PC Mag
itself. And for that, you need to pay.

All those programs were removed from the 2003 PL, for that reason.
They are not being put on the 2004 ballot, unless I missed something
posted since <

 

[Nil]

All those programs were removed from the 2003 PL, for that reason.
They are not being put on the 2004 ballot, unless I missed something
posted since <

Hi --

The link you provided does not work for me. I get the error message that it
could not be retrieved because it either expired or was removed from the
server.

Could you please post the text of that post here? I do not doubt what you
are saying, but I would like to read it myself. Just an old habit from
practicing law for over 30 years.

It is good to hear that all those progs were removed from the 2003 PL. I do
know that several PC Mag utils were nominated here this year. I do not
believe that any were seconded, but I was concerned about what was
happening. So, out of an overabundance of caution, I wanted to raise the
point.

Thanks.

 

[jason]

Could you please post the text of that post here? I do not doubt what
you are saying, but I would like to read it myself. Just an old habit
from practicing law for over 30 years.

This is the text from Susan Bugher (dated 4 Nov 03):

FURTHER NOTE: Some PCmag utilities were nominated. All PCmag
utilities were *removed* from PL2003 since there is now a charge to access
them. I have *not* listed the nominations. Further discussion, if any seems
necessary, can be posted in this thread at this time.

Before that, there were several *extended* discussions of PC Mag
utilites... and how the license agreement got more restrictive over time.
IIRC, there were about 15 or so programs Susan ended up removing! You can
probably pick up some of the discussion by searching the Google archives.

The gist was that the progs are now subscriptionware, not freeware. Even
the former editor of PC Mag utilities weighed in, describing how SHE had
been the force behind changing the license agreement!

 

[Susan Bugher]

Hi Q, You haven't missed any posts.

Hi --

The link you provided does not work for me. I get the error message that it
could not be retrieved because it either expired or was removed from the
server.

Could you please post the text of that post here? I do not doubt what you
are saying, but I would like to read it myself. Just an old habit from
practicing law for over 30 years.

It is good to hear that all those progs were removed from the 2003 PL. I do
know that several PC Mag utils were nominated here this year. I do not
believe that any were seconded, but I was concerned about what was
happening. So, out of an overabundance of caution, I wanted to raise the
point.

Hi Nil,

I maintain the PL web site and sent the posts you asked about.

First let me reassure you re: PL2003

On March 16, 2003 ACF learned that PCMag utilities would soon become
shareware. On March 17, 2003 all PCMag utilites in the 2003
Pricelessware List were removed.

In regard to PL2004:

There are no PCMag programs on the 2004 Nominations list. Some PCMag
utilities were *proposed* as nominations. The proposed nominations were
rejected. A formal procedure was not needed - shareware is not elegible
for the Pricelessware List.

The second post (quoted below) includes the relevant text from my first
post about these utilities.:

<quote>

Subject: Re: [PL] 2004 General Discussion
From: Susan Bugher <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 07:32:22 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware

FURTHER NOTE: Some PCmag utilities were nominated. All PCmag

utilities were *removed* from PL2003 since there is now a charge to
access them. I have *not* listed the nominations. Further discussion, if
any seems necessary, can be posted in this thread at this time.

FURTHER FUTHER NOTE: HDValet was nominated - it is also a PCmag utility.
It will be removed from the Nominations page.

</quote>

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Could you please post the text of that post here?

<http://groups.google.com/[email protected]>

FURTHER NOTE: Some PCmag utilities were nominated. All PCmag
utilities were *removed* from PL2003 since there is now a charge
to access them. I have *not* listed the nominations. Further
discussion, if any seems necessary, can be posted in this thread
at this time.

Susan

That was in the general discussion thread, before the notion of
removal ballots was brought up.

 

[Nil]

Nil wrote:

Hi Q, You haven't missed any posts.

Hi Nil,

I maintain the PL web site and sent the posts you asked about.

First let me reassure you re: PL2003

Susan

Hi, Susan --

Your response is music to my ears.

I was reviewing the nominations today and ran across the proposed PC Mag
nominations. Sirens immediately went off in my head. I didn't see any
seconds, but with all the traffic in the various threads, I simply was not
sure as to what the current status might be in this matter. That's why I
raised the point just to be sure that nothing had fallen through the cracks.
My concern was twofold. First, the PC Mag utils are no longer freeware, and
thus should not even be involved in this process. Second, as someone who
practiced law for over thirty years, with four of them as a judge, I am
extremely sensitive to possible legal problems. In my opinion, if these
utils had not been excised as you have done, there would have been a very
good chance for legal exposure here. This was of great concern to me because
I think very highly of both the Pricelessware list and this newsgroup. So,
to me, raising the red flag here was appropriate. Believe me when I tell you
that, in the law, an ounce of prevention is worth a metric ton of cure. You
have my appreciation and respect not only for your vigilence in this
matter, but also for the overall way you have handled this entire nomination
process.

Thanks for the clarifications. Best wishes.

Nil

 

[Nil]

Could you please post the text of that post here? I do not doubt what
you are saying, but I would like to read it myself. Just an old habit
from practicing law for over 30 years.

This is the text from Susan Bugher (dated 4 Nov 03):

FURTHER NOTE: Some PCmag utilities were nominated. All PCmag
utilities were *removed* from PL2003 since there is now a charge to access
them. I have *not* listed the nominations. Further discussion, if any seems
necessary, can be posted in this thread at this time.

Before that, there were several *extended* discussions of PC Mag
utilites... and how the license agreement got more restrictive over time.
IIRC, there were about 15 or so programs Susan ended up removing! You can
probably pick up some of the discussion by searching the Google archives.

The gist was that the progs are now subscriptionware, not freeware. Even
the former editor of PC Mag utilities weighed in, describing how SHE had
been the force behind changing the license agreement!

Jason --

Thank you very much for that info. I appreciate it. Please see my further
comments in my reply to Susan Bugher's post to me.

Thanks again. Take care.

Nil

 

[Nil]

<http://groups.google.com/[email protected]>

FURTHER NOTE: Some PCmag utilities were nominated. All PCmag
utilities were *removed* from PL2003 since there is now a charge
to access them. I have *not* listed the nominations. Further
discussion, if any seems necessary, can be posted in this thread
at this time.

Susan

That was in the general discussion thread, before the notion of
removal ballots was brought up.

Hello, Q --

Thanks for the info you have supplied here. I appreciate it. Please take a
look-see at my response to Susan's Bugher's post to me for some further
comments.

Thanks again. Take care.

Nil

 

[flan]

My concern was twofold. First, the PC
Mag utils are no longer freeware, and thus should not even be
involved in this process. Second, as someone who practiced law for
over thirty years, with four of them as a judge, I am extremely
sensitive to possible legal problems. In my opinion, if these utils
had not been excised as you have done, there would have been a very
good chance for legal exposure here.

How pretentious. What possible legal exposure could there be. Because they
were mistakenly listed as freeware? Because a link was provided to a site
that was hosting them as freeware? What nonsense.

 

[Nil]

"Nil" <[email protected]> wrote in news:Z2Ttb.3397$Ue4.1402@fed1read01:

I doubt there could be legal ramifications for PW as only "links to" are
provided and not downloads of the physical files (hence no distribution
by PW). Your point though is certainly valid and is why I do not archive
PC Mag apps. on Freeware4u.com
--
burnr
http://freeware4u.com Freeware
http://shelbina-info.com Home-Community site
http://netsharkdownloads.com Shareware

Hi, burnr --

You are doing the right thing. Just don't have those progs on your site.
Also, be sure not to link to other sites that do carry those progs
illegally. About 3 or 4 years ago I represented a 14 year old boy who was
the son of a client. Unfortunately the boy had set up a web site which
linked to other sites that were giving away other people's payware progs on
them. He had no knowledge of copyright laws and no idea what he was doing.
All he knew was, hey these are great progs and here's where you can get
them. To make a long story short, legal action was brought against him.
Because of his age and because he was not acting with malice, we were able
to work out a settlement that kept his exposure down. But it did cost him in
kind, it cost his parents in cash, and no one had a pleasant time. I think
your approach here is prudent. BTW, Freeware4u.com is a fine site. Good luck
to you with it.

Take care.

Nil

 

[burnr]

Hi, burnr --

You are doing the right thing. Just don't have those progs on your
site. Also, be sure not to link to other sites that do carry those
progs illegally. About 3 or 4 years ago I represented a 14 year old
boy who was the son of a client. Unfortunately the boy had set up a
web site which linked to other sites that were giving away other
people's payware progs on them. He had no knowledge of copyright laws
and no idea what he was doing. All he knew was, hey these are great
progs and here's where you can get them. To make a long story short,
legal action was brought against him. Because of his age and because
he was not acting with malice, we were able to work out a settlement
that kept his exposure down. But it did cost him in kind, it cost his
parents in cash, and no one had a pleasant time. I think your approach
here is prudent. BTW, Freeware4u.com is a fine site. Good luck to you
with it.

Take care.

Nil

Hi Nil

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I have no desire to get on the wrong side
of a legal issue with copyright.

 

[Susan Bugher]

That was in the general discussion thread, before the notion of
removal ballots was brought up.

You've brought up something that I've been wrestling with.

The PL2004 Nominations page will be on the Pricelessware site after the
election. That page will be used by some people as a guide to programs
that are worth further investigation.

Spyware, Adware and commercial programs are not permitted on the
Pricelessware list. I disqualified some nominations that IMO were not
*clearly* not suitable because I did not want them to remain on the
nominations page.

If we place programs on the acceptable/ unacceptable ballot and the
program does not receive a second it amy not come to a vote.

Any suggestions on the best procedure to handle this kind of problem in
the future?

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html

 

[jason]

How pretentious. What possible legal exposure could there be.
Because they were mistakenly listed as freeware? Because a link was
provided to a site that was hosting them as freeware? What nonsense.

Not nonsense at all! From looking through her past acf postings, it's easy
enough to prove that Susan KNOWS the legal status of PC Mag utilities. If
she continued to list them, it would NOT be an accident! She's absolutely
right to not want to expose herself or the group to legal exposure!

 

[flan]

She's absolutely right to not want to expose herself or
the group to legal exposure!

You've seen a newsgroup being sued? That would be interesting.

 

[jason]

You've seen a newsgroup being sued? That would be interesting.

Yeah, sorry. :-( I didn't mean to include the newsgroup.

 

[omega]

Yeah, sorry. :-( I didn't mean to include the newsgroup.

I didn't interpret your message's inclusion of "the group" quite so
literally.

Although there might be precedent that the CoS has tried to sue newsgroups,
given all their other extremist actions. And there have been various
creepy stories, such as the Petswarehouse (not petwarehouse) legal attacks
on people who were publicly communicating.
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Business/Allegedly_Unethical_Firms/Pets_Warehouse/

Whether lawsuits could theoretically be conducted against those "aiding &
abetting" the prohibited redistribution of PCMag utils, I have no way
to say myself (my legal knowledge is pretty much Cliff Notes aka Nolo,
in the Dummies versions). It's moot of course, since PL has standards
it holds itself to, far above and beyond mere legal defensibility.

 

[jason]

Whether lawsuits could theoretically be conducted against those
"aiding & abetting" the prohibited redistribution of PCMag utils...

I think it's a cost-benefit thing. Nobody wants to take on a group of people
who are *marginally* crossing the line. Even if someone is *grossly*
crossing the line, they're likely to get a "warning" first.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

0.74 (patch D). I'll upgrade to patch F and see if it still pops
up.

Now using Trillian 0.74 (patch F). This patch did not remove the
nag; it still pops up. Several Trillian users have remarked that
they have never seen the nag window urging a purchase of Trillian
Pro, so here's an image of the window:

<http://www.cotse.net/users/putty/images/trilliannag.png>

 

[omega]

I think it's a cost-benefit thing. Nobody wants to take on a group of people
who are *marginally* crossing the line. Even if someone is *grossly*
crossing the line, they're likely to get a "warning" first.

Moving it from the theoretical to the actual. Yes, appears what we've seen
with PCMag is evidence that they looked for all links to their programs by
filename.zip, and then sent siteholders harsh warnings. The remaining PCMag
programs out there are probably mainly in two categories of location:
places where the siteholder cannot be contacted, or places where the
siteholder has done a rename of the zip(s).


Idle Tangential...

Redistribution, would that have normal English meaning? If so, it is
permissible to download or otherwise receive a PCMag utility from someone
else. Only prohibition is upon the distributer, not the distributee.

So in this case it's not allowed for someone else to send you the file,
but it is allowed to receive, as well as to use it.