Subject: Re: Copyright request?!?
Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon01.swbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <376690FF.E1B36D43@swbell.net>
From: Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
Reply-To: rubywand@swbell.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,comp.emulators.apple2
References: <199906071256.MAA08907@berlin.neuropa.net> <37629E8E.A11319F6@earthlink.net> <37645d24.2216771@news>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 210
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:44:31 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.193.8.178
X-Complaints-To: abuse@swbell.net
X-Trace: typhoon01.swbell.net 929468418 207.193.8.178 (Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:40:18 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:40:18 PDT
Organization: SBC Internet Services
Xref: lobby comp.sys.apple2:83850 comp.emulators.apple2:17571



Jeff Blakeney writes ...
> 
> On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 17:53:19 +0000, sheercon@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> >Software piracy with contemporary software is obviously a "bad thing".
> >Software that is obsolete, not commercially available with no chance of
> >becoming so - it seems a bit extreme accusing someone of *theft* for having
> >such software.
> 
> It may seem extreme but that is what it is.  Whether it is theft on
> monetary value or theft of intellectual property it makes no
> difference.  Theft is theft.
>

     Theft is, certainly, theft. Duplicating copyrighted pics from a magazine
for your Science class and downloading ancient Apple II software is not theft.
Indeed, in both cases, it is easy to show that the copyright owner benefits. 
     If the copyright owner feels otherwise, stopping the activity without
lawyers and legal fees is easy-- usually, you just ask. (Of course, the
magazine becomes less valuable to the teacher who may, then, terminate his/her
subscription. The owner of the old game copyright will get less free exposure
of the Activision or SSI or Interplay or whatever label. In the case of a
series like Ultima or Might and Magic, the copyright owner will get fewer
shoppers who recognize and buy new offerings in the series.)


 ....
 
> >And since noone is /losing/ money by this obsolete software being
> >offered; nobody has any financial motivation to prevent it. If the authors
> >don't care, why should you?
> 
> 1) I have a collection of original software that if I ever wanted to
> sell it (which isn't going to happen soon, this is just a hypothetical
> situation :), I would find that it is worthless because everyone is
> downloading it for free from the internet.  What should have been
> worth a fair bit because it is difficult to get just becomes worthless
> junk taking up space so will probably end up in a landfill.  A real
> "crime" if you ask me.
>

     With your purchase, you were never guaranteed anything except getting a
functioning game. If you bought with the idea of 'making a killing' in the
Antique Games market of 2001, you knew very well that you were 'rolling the
dice'. If the gamble is a loser, that's the breaks. And, when the gamble pays
off and you sell Ultima I for $500, no one calls you a thief.

     In any case, downloading of a game generally _increases_ the 'antique'
value of an original. My collection of originals is large, too; and, I'm
pleased as can be to see continuing interest in copies of the games in my
collection.

     True, downloading does make it more difficult to sell some originals--
usually, just those which require little or no docs-- for play. That is, If
someone is not a collector and just wants to play SkyFox, they are more likely
to download a copy rather than buy an original.

     This could make it difficult to sell your SkyFox original to a
non-collector at some typical second-hand software price. But, then, are you
interested in unloading your originals for $3 - $15 each? Probably not. You
want to sell to a collector.

     Once again, we get back to the importance of having an active gaming
culture. If all downloading could be stopped and everyone agreed to use only
originals on their Apple II's and for their emulators, the Apple II gaming
culture would cease to exist. Yes; your originals of Paul Whitehead Teaches
Chess and Fight Night would be among the few copies available; but, hardly
anyone would give a flip.

     Rarity alone is not enough. People have to be _interested_ in the rare
whatever-it-is. The world is knee-deep in rare stuff which isn't worth the
price of a doughnut.


 
> 2) If people are willing to steal older software, what is the cut off
> point?  How old is old and what is meant by oboslete and how do you
> know that there is no way to legally obtain a package?
 ....

     Downloading software from the Apple II archives is legal. We have a system
which works to protect copyright holder rights and promote user interests. 

     Age is just one of several guidelines a site admin might use to decide
whether or not offering an item is the right thing to do. Most users would
agree that 5 years is pretty "old" for software; yet, some much older software
is not maintained on archives because copyright owners have made it clear they
do not wish the software to be there.

     Legally speaking, the primary constraint is that the copyright owner not
object to the presence of an item on an archive. In practical terms, this
typically means that an archive will not maintain an item if it seems likely
that the copyright owner would be damaged or that the copyright owner would
object.



> 
> 3) Many people who are willing to pirate older software will also be
> inclined to pirate new software.  Not everyone mind you.

     Doesn't matter. This is the third time you have stated or implied that
users who download old commercial software from perfectly legal archives are
thieves and pirates. It is _your_ position which is out of step with the law. 
     Continuing to label Apple II users who download Wizardry, Archon, classic
Appleworks, etc. as "thieves" is not merely inaccurate. It is morally and
ethically wrong.



>  I am
> generalizing here.  Why pay the shareware fees or buy one of the
> remaining commercial products if you can just download it or get a
> copy from a friend?
>

     ??? "Shareware" is _supposed_ to be freely downloadable. The basic idea is
that the shareware creator gets free wide exposure of his/her commercial
product in return for placing no restrictions on distribution and leaving the
pay/not-pay decision up to the user.



 
> By letting it this sort of activity go on unchecked and without
> letting people who don't realize it is wrong know that they are
> breaking the law, it will just continue to grow and then there will be
> no new software for the Apple IIs because no one will be willing to
> put in the time and effort only to have it stolen out from under them.
>

     So far, the only legal violation involved is libel.


     The archives maintain thousands of copyrighted software items:

Which are being maintained against the will of the copyright owner?

Which copyright holders are being hurt by the presence of which pieces of Apple
II software on an archive?     



     Isn't it, really, much more likely that nearly every copyright holder
_benefits_ from the continued availability of out-of-print wares to Apple II
users.



 
> There are reasons laws are put in place and they should be observed.
> If the law doesn't make sense anymore get it changed but until it does
> change the law is still the law.
>

     True. It would be nice if you would bother to find out what the law is
instead of making up your own.



 
> By the way, my biggest beef with the pirate sites and the people that
> support them is that they simply will not admit that they are breaking
> the law.

     That is because they are not breaking the law.

     Don't you suppose that the usual bunch of wreckers has tried every which
way (legal and illegal) to have the archives shut down? Like, it's not as
though we are talking about floating URLs or sites in central Grommerstan. 
     Even if actually checking the law is too much bother, doesn't it strike
you as, at least, very weird that, were the archives illegal, they would
continue to exist and, even, expand? 



> They just keep coming up with excuses and explanations as to
> why it isn't illegal when it simply and plainly is illegal.

    "They" are the ones who believe that the law should be obeyed. You seem to
feel that YOU are the law-- if something doesn't please YOU, it must be
illegal.

 


>  I'd be
> much happier if they would at least start putting disclaimers on the
> sites and in there posts about these sites saying "NOTE: Some (much)
> of the material on this site is not legal to distribute."

     Except, that would be an untrue statement.


 ....      
 
> Now, who brought up this topic again?
> It wasn't like there wasn't much traffic here lately.  :)
 ....

     Maybe. However, it is worthwhile to defend the truth on this issue.

     Some respected members of the Apple II community may honestly believe old
software can not legally or rightly be made available for free downloading.
They are mistaken and should review the facts.




Rubywand