Subject: Re: Copyright request?!?
Message-ID: <375DA33F.253AB72@swbell.net>
From: Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
Reply-To: rubywand@swbell.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,comp.emulators.apple2
References: <199906071256.MAA08907@berlin.neuropa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 276
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:11:59 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.193.13.146
X-Complaints-To: abuse@swbell.net
X-Trace: typhoon01.swbell.net 928883274 207.193.13.146 
(Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:07:54 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:07:54 PDT
Organization: SBC Internet Services
Xref: lobby comp.sys.apple2:83605 comp.emulators.apple2:17491



Penman writes ...
> 
> You've accused me of not being civil,

     Not exactly. Your first four or five posts to this newsgroup under the name
"Penman", included some which were attacks upon an established contributor. My
response to these attacks, the only one, was as follows ...

>>
 
penman@myremarq.com writes ...
> 
> Tom, in the over 2 years I've been lurking on this
> group, so many people have publically noted the software
> that was posted without copyright, on your ftp site as
> well as other sites, that your "challenge" is completely
> void.  To get back to my original question, why is it you
> never mention the ftp sites that do not condone piracy?
> This you have refused to answer, "freedom of information
> on the internet (what a spurious remark!) notwithstanding.
> No matter what I say, you'll only demand what others have
> already proved, ignore it and move on.  When I 1st started
> I had respect for you, that's gone.  You brought it all on
> yourself, guy, and your actions and current words only go
> to show that nothing's changed.  Sad.
 ....

     Really?

     Dr. Tom established the major IIgs software archive (Apple Cabi.net)
after the Asimov-GS site was trashed by hacker vigilantes-- i.e. pirates. He
also maintains an on-line 'zine, GS-WorldView, on grin.net along with other
Apple II resources, including, for example TrackStar info and .app disk
files.

     The first project to get popular II/IIgs software officially
reclassified as shareware, freeware, and/or PD came from Dr. Tom. He's also
the one who dickered with AOL for permission to move the AOL Apple II
archives to Ground (including the AOL annotations) and did most of the work
of transferring the files.

     There's lots more. Dr. Tom has made II computing easier, more
productive, and more fun for many, many users.

     If you want something to feel sad about, consider the impression you've
made here with your first few postings.

<<


     So; if you felt that your attacks were civil and something to be proud of,
you were free to dismiss the suggestion. If you felt that your attacks were
"uncivil", you were free to be more civil.



> well here goes:
> 
> Rubywand, your arguement about waiting for the copyright holder to
> "request" that their software be removed simply points out the piracy
> mentality.

     It does??? Well, one must admit to having a Real Pirate's Badge(!) from dear
old Natey. Forgot exactly how it was earned-- think it was something about telling
a new user that Appleworks 2.0 was available for download on Asimov.


> You should do the opposite - withhold placing software,
> regardless of how much YOU want it there, until you DO get permission.
> Yes, I know, some people may not be found,

     Don't know about that. For sure, practically all old II and IIgs commercial
software would not be available.



> but this (and this has been
> pointed out to you and the others ad nauseum for years)

    "Ad nauseum", definitely. 



> posting and
> waiting is copyright infringement, theft, stealing, whatever you want to
> call it.

     Sloppy. Yes, it is copyright infringement. It is not "theft" or "stealing" or
"whatever you want to call it".

     Infringement means that, in one way or another, 'liberties have been taken'
with a copyrighted product. And, by the way, just about every product enjoys some
kind of copyright or similar protection.

     Infringement is not, per se, illegal. If a teacher makes copies of a solar
eclipse picture from a magazine for his/her science class, that is very likely to
be a case of infringement. Copyright infringement happens millions of times every
day and no one minds, including the copyright holders and legally constituted law
enforcement authorities.

     The purpose of copyright law is to permit the creator to have a fair
opportunity to obtain monetary benefit from his/her creation. To achieve this
objective, copyright law hands the creator a 'loaded gun' of rights. It is up to
the copyright holder to assert the rights.

     If the copyright holder cares about an instance of infringement, the holder
can assert holder rights, object to the infringement, and, obtain the full force
of law to end it.



> The onus is on YOU as the poster to get the info, not on the
> copyright holder to protest.

     The law says otherwise. For you to insist upon such a condition displays, at
best, ignorance of the law. If, in fact, you know better, it is an extra legal,
vigilante position. You have no right to take upon yourself the enforcement of
"laws" you merely wish into existence.



>  I find it interesting that the Lost Classics
> folk over at Genie/Delphi (oh right--you don't like them for some reason
> that's never made sense to me) and Willie Yeo's site have been able to get
> a LOT of copyright permissions, just this past year.  All of the Qlabs
> titles, the Office Productivity Software titles, and these have shown up
> on the ftp sites, along with a lot of other software, that HAVE had
> permission obtained. Amazing how many ftp sites there are stuffed to the
> gills with legitimate software releases.  Amazing that cabi.net and Asimov
> and to a certain extent Ground has software-by-rationalization posted.
>

     What is truly amazing is that self-appointed law enforcers seem not to notice
that, despite repeated slanderous attacks, these sites remain. It never seems to
dawn upon these vigilante types that, if Asimov, Apple IIgs Gaming Memory Fairway,
The Vault, etc. were "pirate sites", they would certainly have been shut down
years ago. In fact, the sites are entirely legal.

     Apple II computing is very nearly free of software piracy. As has been
demonstrated on several occasions, our major software archives will remove any
item when so requested by the copyright holder. In fact, it is standard practice
to go along with creator restraints upon placement of publicly released shareware
and freeware.

     If you are a software creator, your rights and privileges enjoy the
determined protection of the archives and the users who participate in the major
newsgroup. Plus, you still have the backing of legally constituted law enforcement
authorities should you wish it. Basically, a software creator's rights are better
defended here than is true for any other platform. 


 
> But it's easier, isn't it, to just post and wait for someone to object,
> and when they do, reading this newsgroup, the software's still not always
> removed, is it?

     If the "someone" who objects is not the copyright holder, then, that
"someone" has no legal standing. The mission of the archives is to make software
available-- they would be acting irresponsibly were they to pull software every
time some wrecker type objected.

     If it bothers you to see some piece of 5-20 year old commercial software made
available for download, you are free to contact Activision or SSI or DataMost or
whomever and vent your frustrations. Assuming you make it past the receptionist
and that the person you reach knows what you are wailing about, you are likely to
discover that the copyright holder does not in the least mind having the software
available for download. It is excellent free advertising for their brand name
should any downloader be in the market for current PC entertainment wares.



> "Abandonedware" isn't a software catagory.  It's a
> rationalization for theft.  You know it, you understand it, and you
> condone and do it.
>

     Wrongly accusing someone of "theft" out of ignorance is, perhaps, an
understandable mistake. Once you know better, it is called "libel".


 
> I'll ask again - instead of huffing and puffing,

     Feel free to huff and puff as much as you like.
 


> let us KNOW that the MIDI
> files being done are from non-copyrighted sources.  I get bravada and
> noise, but no justification.
>

     You got a correct, firm response from Dr. Tom. So long as the software is no
longer being sold by the copyright owner and the copyright owner is not selling
some 'Best Music from NarfQuest', etc. collection, there is nothing wrong with
making music from old software available for downloading and enjoyment of users.


 
> Oh--and just for you know - I live east of the Miss. river in case you
> wanted to know.

     The question had not occurred to me. At least this information eliminates the
possibility that you live In the Mississippi.



> From both you and Turley in the past I've gotten email
> very insulting to questions others ended up answering in civil manner.

     There is no recollection or record of any email to you. This seems to be only
my third instance of any contact. The previous two were public posts (one of which
is reproduced above).

     My other contact was a response to something about programming. Just a moment
... . Here it is, from 11 May 1999:


>>

penman@myremarq.com writes ...
> 
 ....

> question:  If two people are trying to patch the same
> location in the same program for the same result, what are
> the odds that they both WON'T come up with the same answer?
> With as many bright minds as we have in this community, and
> with the number of people willing to share their expertise,
> why is it that some people are accusing others of
> intellectual theft merely for having the same (or better?)
> level of programming expertise?  Absolutely unbelievable.
> Even as a non-programmer I can see where seveal people are
> going to come up with the SAME result.  1+1=2.  My, what
> a difficult concept to grasp.

     Depends upon the programming problem to be solved. For example,
something like getting more lives in an action game will, often, lead to a
single answer being submitted, posted, etc. by several individuals. It is
generally understood that the value at some address needs to be changed and
once you find the address, that's that.

     Most programming problems are less simple and/or less well-defined. Even
a fairly simple fix for the Space Ace combat routine in Ultima I led to
different solutions.

     In general, an experienced programmer can look at a problem and the
solutions offered and evaluate the likelihood of identical responses.

<<


     What is there which is insulting about the above?



> I'm not the only one here who uses a nom-de-plume.  And you know why.

     Actually, I do not. My original assumption was that you liked "Penman" and/or
just wanted to be anonymous. (I guess that you could be in the witness protection
program. Or, maybe, your real name is impossible for Earthers to pronounce?)



>  (Or
> could this be part of Turley's earlier "Freedom of information on the
> internet?  :) )
> 

     ??? You may want to check out an interesting forum on Delphi:

http://www.delphi.com/ArtBell .



Rubywand