MOTM

No, of course the guy who downloads a .GIF wouldn't pay.  That would be
silly.  :)  But in theory Paul S. (or whoever creates the images) would have
to pay as the guy who does the compression.  Or do I still have it wrong?
Here's the article on slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/29/0722236.shtml.  (Warning, there's a
LOT of user comments, so its a big page.)

OK, here's what I've gathered from subsequent pages... UniSys (the GIF guys)
want a licence fee from software developers that use their compression
routine AND from "web sites" (does this mean owner, creater, who?) that have
.GIFs from a questionable source (not necesarily created by software from
developers who paid the licence fee).

--PBr

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dave Bradley [SMTP:daveb@...]
> Sent:	Friday, May 26, 2000 9:19 AM
> To:	motm@egroups.com
> Subject:	RE: [motm] How come UniSys is not rich?
> 
> > The only problem is that the .GIF compression routine is copyright'ed,
> so
> > you're theoretically supposed to pay whenever you use the compression
> > routine.  Search http://www.slashdot.org for details, I don't
> > remember them
> > clearly.  At the same time, I highly doubt that the owner of the
> > copyrights
> > is going to search out every "illegal" user and prosecute.
> >
> 
> Actually, I believe the end user doesn't pay, it's the software maker who
> includes the compression algorithms which must pay.
>

BUT: If I pay for a "legal" copy of Photoshop 5.0 (which I did), then I'm
expempt! Adobe pays
for the license.

Paul S.

----- Original Message -----
From: Brousseau, Paul E (Paul) <noise@...>
To: <motm@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 11:33 AM
Subject: RE: [motm] How come UniSys is not rich? [OT!]


> No, of course the guy who downloads a .GIF wouldn't pay.  That would be
> silly.  :)  But in theory Paul S. (or whoever creates the images) would
have
> to pay as the guy who does the compression.  Or do I still have it wrong?
> Here's the article on slashdot:
> http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/29/0722236.shtml.  (Warning, there's a
> LOT of user comments, so its a big page.)
>
> OK, here's what I've gathered from subsequent pages... UniSys (the GIF
guys)
> want a licence fee from software developers that use their compression
> routine AND from "web sites" (does this mean owner, creater, who?) that
have
> .GIFs from a questionable source (not necesarily created by software from
> developers who paid the licence fee).
>
> --PBr
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Bradley [SMTP:daveb@...]
> > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 9:19 AM
> > To: motm@egroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [motm] How come UniSys is not rich?
> >
> > > The only problem is that the .GIF compression routine is copyright'ed,
> > so
> > > you're theoretically supposed to pay whenever you use the compression
> > > routine.  Search http://www.slashdot.org for details, I don't
> > > remember them
> > > clearly.  At the same time, I highly doubt that the owner of the
> > > copyrights
> > > is going to search out every "illegal" user and prosecute.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, I believe the end user doesn't pay, it's the software maker
who

> > includes the compression algorithms which must pay.
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FREE 16 track CD with Purchase at Virgin Megastore Online!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4208/5/_/529958/_/959358766/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>