From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a7365ff3531de5f4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!nnx.oleane.net!oleane!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail
From: "Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 18:40:06 -0700
Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or
Message-ID: <mailman.58.1083602537.313.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
References: 
 <mailman.24.1083236920.313.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org><mailman.35.1083335899.313.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org><slrnc94pbh.6fe.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@rong.nt.ntnu.no><mailman.37.1083337149.313.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org><r4vb90pd7q6rf67tmjrr7jlpmo93kivc6h@4ax.com><mailman.54.1083580223.313.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
	<5djc901glq576rcnpfm8v8vfr7l4s8b4uf@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1083602538 70199 212.85.156.195 (3 May 2004
 16:42:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 16:42:18 +0000 (UTC)
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Return-Path: <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2004 16:42:08.0413 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[9314F4D0:01C4312D]
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org
X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup"
	<comp.lang.ada.ada-france.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
List-Help: <mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=subscribe>
Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:212
Date: 2004-05-03T18:40:06-07:00

> >Again, I believe the music example can help. Reward is due when the work
is
> >executed. So it works for items that can be executed. Music scores,
> >programs, in a straightfoward way.
>
> It might work, if there were an infrastructure ready to count runs.
> However, I do not think that customers would enjoy a model of paying
> per run.

That's indeed a problem, but it has a solution. You don't need to count
runs. The creator is certainly willing to cut a fair deal not requiring run
count. That's what happens when a recording company buys the copyright. When
I say reward is due from execution, I'm not saying it has to be a direct
scheme, just based on the idea. The reward should also be calculated
(negotiated) taking into account the monetary effects of running the work.
Creator A writes an e-commerce system. Client B runs the system to sell
whatever. A and B cut a deal, based on the expected revenues of B, the role
A's system plays there, or even with provisions to adjust the deal to the
evolution of B's business.