Subject: Re: Copyright
Message-ID: <3768FF5F.95EFBEE2@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: <199906152207.WAA06986@berlin.neuropa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 135
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:59:59 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.193.13.79
X-Complaints-To: abuse@swbell.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:55:44 PDT
Organization: SBC Internet Services
Xref: lobby comp.sys.apple2:83906 comp.emulators.apple2:17613



Penman writes ...
>
 ....

> My point was and is - there's efforts from people to go and get
> the approval of copyright holders to release Apple II software.  That's
> the proper way to do it.  To post, and then say the onus is on the
> copyright holder to discover this and then make a decision is, at a
> minimum, selfish and lazy.

     Something of a distortion. Yes, normally, the copyright holder must be the one
to request legal action. You or some other third party would have no legal
standing. (If this worries you, you will need to seek a change in the law.)

     However, any user who feels that NarfGame or whatever should not be available
on some site can say so to the site admin or in a posted message here or in an
email to the copyright holder. So, the owner of a copyright for some currently
available commercial product is very likely to be informed. And, as long as we have
well run archives, any mistake is likely to be quickly corrected.




> All one has to do is look at the Lost Classics
> project of Delphi/Genie for example to see about current work at
> legitimately getting software reclassified.
>

     There are several benefits of such efforts:

1. Reclassification removes ambiguity about a product's availability. This is
especially helpful in the case of relatively recent releases where there may be
some doubt which has kept the items from being made available on an archive.

2. Reclassification persuades some that the availability of an item on an archive
is suddenly "legal". Even though it was legal before reclassification, this reduces
ill-informed ranting about "piracy". 

3. If the copyright owner is an individual programmer, he/she sometimes updates the
product and documentation when agreeing to have a product made freely available.

4. Some reclassifications are as shareware. This gives the owner another
opportunity to derive monetary benefit from the product.

5. When a software maker is contacted, the maker becomes aware of the continuing
interest in Apple II/IIgs software. This could lead to new releases.

6. Reclassification efforts help promote awareness of copyright holder rights and a
readiness to battle genuine piracy.

7. The Treasure Chest site is, itself, a good archive.



     Evidently, your position is that this kind of reclassification effort is the
solution to making most out-of-print Apple II commercial software available. It is
not.

     Consider the work put in by Dr. Tom and Willie Yeo (and others in projects
such as "Lost Treasures") to get the software listed on Treasure Chest
reclassified. Yet; the software there is but a tiny fraction of the mass of
out-of-print commercial Apple II products.


There are several factors which explain the relatively small output:

1. Often, especially for old games, it is very difficult to discover who owns the
copyright for a product.

2. Many copyright holders are nearly impossible to locate.

3. For a major software maker, changing the status of a product is likely to
involve something of a hassle. There will be digging through old records,
paperwork, and, possibly, legal costs.

4. Officially agreeing to reclassification for free downloading is much different
than permitting a product to remain on an archive without comment.

a. It removes a significant weapon from the copyright owner's arsenal. Once a
product is free there is little chance of obtaining monetary damages for misuse of
the product. The copyright holder's real world control of the product is weakened.

b. Whereas, before, the copyright holder may have been separated from the product
by more than a decade, agreeing to reclassification establishes a modern link to
the product and its performance.


     So, along with the time and effort used up to, with luck, contact a copyright
owner, there is good reason to expect a refusal at the end of the quest. Very
likely, the owner would not at all mind having the product available for free
downloading. However, the owner's rights are stronger and the cost and hassle much
less when the answer is "No" to any request for an official statement.

     Fortunately, the archives do a fine job of legally making software available.
If you are interested in a reclassification solution, there is at least one
approach which could move most out-of-print Apple II software to public domain
status. Copyright law could be changed to shorten the length of a software
copyright to, say, five years.



> Obosolete or not, money generating or not, it's the callous attitude of
> the people involved in saying "Hey, if they don't like it, let them
> complain" that is the basis of this ongoing discussion.

LOL! One hopes you are not going to explain how "Compassionate" you are.



      
> 
> Let's take a look for example, at Tom Turley's recent discussion regarding
> Shrink II.  He says he can get the confirmation (email with headers) that
> will show that ShrinkII has been released as freeware.  If so, then this
> is legitimate effort, done with the knowledge of the copyright holder.
> This I can appreciate.

     No doubt, Dr. Tom is leaping with gladness.



> Rubywand's continuous diatribe however, is more an
> exercise in rationalization than service.  Since he's worked for
> organizations that have held copyrights, this attitude of his does amaze
> me (flame if you want, Ruby, but that's how I view it.  And  we're just
> going over old ground again.)
 ....

     Look, if you're sorry about trashing Dr. Tom in your earlier posts, why not
just say so instead of getting all twisted up in an issue which, as you observe,
has been well diatribed over.



Rubywand