Subject: Re: A time for action... Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: cturley2@aol.com (Cturley2) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Lines: 148 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 27 Jul 2000 23:10:40 GMT References: <3980831A.68FA4F6E@swbell.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000727191040.27583.00001209@ng-fi1.aol.com> Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote: > .... > > What we care about is that newbies know that some sites have copyrighted > software available for download, and that they be made aware of that fact. > After that, what they do is really their own business isn't it? > Rubywand wrote in reply: <> I can't argue with that and I won't either!!! > We also care to see copyrighted software made into freeware, so anyone > can use these software works of art. Personally, I'd like to see it made public domain so others could take it up to expand and improve and/or use it for any need. Sharewares can be revoked from that status at will by the copyright owner and made commercial in status again - public domain can not! Still a reclassification to freeware or even shareware from the stagnant state of commercial classification for the old A2 titles no longer offered for commercial sales from their owners and/or distributors is the next best thing that could be done with them all - IMHO! And Rubywand continued with this comment: <> Thanks Jeff...but, actually I've got less than a dozen such reclassifications to my credit so far. I'm working on 1000's more but, as of now - no reply has been received with anything on granting any reclassification to freeware status with the A2 old commercial titles. Howard Katz and 'The Lost Classics Project' has a very good track record with reclassifications from commercial to freeware for many A2 titles, certainly more than I current can claim. I do have a very nice surprise for the A2 community with a great A2 collection that I have been able to get reclassified to public domain. I'll make the announcement on that when I have the written verification to offer solid proof to all doubters on this - some time in August. > Further, a few weeks ago, a legal argument was made, citing case law, > as to how, if you own a machine, using the firmware isn't a violation of > copyright law. Ruby knows about and has ignored that post - it > undermines his wish to paint "vogons" as hypocrites. Roy...I hate to burst your bubble on the above - but "vogons are hypocrites. That's a verified fact. Check out HHGTTG for proof on it. Thus, if you acknowledge that you are in fact a "vogon' then you are also a hypocrite. With respect to the issue over the ROM - unless the ROM rights owner has given consent for the free distribution and proof can be given on such when requested - then the ROM is not being distributed within the legal rights it's protected under. As to distributing ANY Apple II related ROM image online from any site or sending it by email external attachments to anybody for noncommercial needs and use - I see nothing wrong with doing it - even if it is termed as not being legal. Just as I have on many occasions jaywalked when I see it is safe for me to do (and will continue to do so) - I have no moral or ethical problems with making ANY Apple II ROM available to any Apple II user for noncommercial needs or desires. Let those that want to label me as a pirate for such views - go for it! .... Rubywand next comments: <> In such a case and certainly IMHO it is a copyright violation - but, of such a nature that the likelihood of anybody doing anything about it with any type of a civil legal action is so remote that the odds exceed winning the California Super-Mega Lotto. Like I said above - I have no moral or ethical problems with such distribution if it promotes the use of Apple II emulation or is for the noncommercial needs and desires of A2 users and hobbyist. Where somebody to offer a CD or the file of a ROM image by any manner for sale commercially or for use with any commercial product - without full consent and authorization by the ROM owner - then I would consider it a copyright violation that deserved criminal and/or civil action taken. What I've said above may seem to be hypocrisy of itself :) But, I will try to clear that up by simply saying I condone the distribution of any A2 ROM image for any noncommercial effort. I do not condone the distribution of any A2 ROM image for any commercial effort in such a method. And, in conclusion Rubywand states: <> I fully agree in EVERY respect on that! This exist in nearly anything you look at carefully enough though - today it seems, if you lok at it deeply enough . :( I guess it's a flaw in our human nature we are all guilty of in one way or another from time to time. So many of us will often justify doing this or that - as being OK! But, then we will rant and rave or even flame another for doing the same general thing. How strange and twisted it all seems!!! I really think it all comes down to looking at each thing done on a case-to-case basis. Perhaps people will see me as a person who promotes anarchy. But, I honestly feel (with respect to all of these issues under debate in the A2 community today) -- if it's for the general well being and good of the majority - then it's not harming, ignoring or dishonoring anything that doesn't deserve it. Cheers, Tom Rubywand