Re: Public Access Nodes / Copywrited Nodes
Ross A. Finlayson (raf@tomco.net)
Thu, 12 Sep 1996 01:00:20 -0400
>X-POP3-Rcpt: raf@hiway
>X-Sender: raf@hiway.tomco.net
>Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 01:15:03 -0400
>To: Richard Hubbard <rhubbard@mo.net>
>From: Ross Finlayson <raf@tomco.net>
>Subject: Re: Public Access Nodes / Copywrited Nodes
>Cc: www-vrml@wired.com
>Sender: owner-www-vrml@wired.com
>
>At 07:41 PM 7/7/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>This is old, old ground. If big fish like Microsoft can do OK without copy
>>protection, then everyone else can, too.
>>
>
>Hate to point this out, but if there's one thing that Microsoft is
>interested in, it's copy protection, or rather, keeping track of copies.
>How else do you think a software company like that makes money? I am sure
>that Bill and Co. are quite happy to snuff out as many unauthorized software
>copiers as possible through the BSA or whatever.
>
>The new ground here is that instead of, say, Microsoft supporting all of the
>new models and worlds for VRML 2.0 and 3D in general, we're probably going
>to see a flourish of smaller 3D design houses. Whereas say Microsoft can
>afford a lot of cashflow-negative projects because of their backing and not
>worry about illicit copies of new material as much, smaller houses are in
>more danger of getting ripped off.
>
>I am of the school that publicity is good. I'm not particularly concerned
>at this point whether or not images or programs made by me are used by other
>people, as long as they don't pawn them off as their own or make too much
>money off of it. however, a significant amount of developers are more
>concerned about controlling the distribution of their products. To that
>end, some kind of signature on each file might be incorporated. That is not
>to say that every browser or whatever would have to support our
>signature/charge system. From how the Internet has developed so far, we
>might infer that some companies will make an appropriate system soon enough.
>
>To all those people concerned about their intellectual property rights, look
>up some copyright stuff and file it. Right now, having a patent or
>copyright is much more efficient than any kind of charging system.
>
>Here's one way you could charge people: Have a browser plugin for one-time
>use files. For a user to view the images on your site, they would use the
>plugin, perhaps simply as an overlay for whatever other plugin is being used
>to view the file. The file would be charged and encrypted by the server,
>and sent to the browser. The client plugin would decypher the file and
>display it for use. When the user was done viewing the file, it would be
>deleted. If the browser did not have write accessit could just never be
>unscrambled except to the authorized browser. Anyways, this prevents copies
>(until somebody hacks the plug-in). You could also, with this plugin,
>authorize other forms of limited use files. For example, a user might pay
>once and then have fair use of the file. Anyways, more details on the
>codename GetCash! browser plugin available at
>http://www.tomco.net/~raf/comp. Copyright 1996 Finlayson Consulting. All
>rights reserved.
>
>Have a nice day,
>
>Ross
>
>