Re: Nathan Mates (was Re: OMG!)

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Wow!  What an interesting turn of events, that I should find myself
posting a reply under this thread title!  ;-)

Joe (>) quoted Sheldon (> >) thus:

> >As far as I can tell, the vast majority of people who still have an
> >interest in the Apple II don't have any interest in pirating actively
> >developed or distributed programs.
> 
>Not even 2-3 weeks ago, I had to contact the sysadmin at Asimov to point
>out that several current programs from Shareware Solutions II were
>available for free download from that site.
> 
>That's about the 10th or 15th time I've had to do that.
>
>And, each time is just one more nail...

I hear you, Joe.  But consider that most (almost all?) of us who
buy software that you have for sale would do so even if it were
available on the net.  How many people who downloaded Harmonie
would have bought it from you?  I would venture that the number
is very near zero.

The same argument applies to Bev's work--if you've got along without
it all these years, then you're not going to buy it NOW.  Or if you just
discovered the Apple II and AppleWorks, and are trying to get up to
speed, then you probably won't have figured out how to snag software
of the net yet.

It comes down to this--what is the marginal loss in an already marginal
market.  Those who are willing to pay because they need something
WILL pay--and get the documentation in the process.  Those who are
simply "gathering freebies" would never pay, and are no loss to the
"market".

I understand and support your desire to defend your distribution
monopoly (which is what copyright is), but see only a technical
case, without moral merit, to be made in the case of works which
are forgotten by their rights holders.  (And no one is under any
moral obligation to remind them of what they have forgotten, since
_ipso facto_, they are not being harmed.)

I respect those who abstain from cluttering their hard disks with
old bits out of politeness or technical legality, but we may find
some day that such dissemination is the best defense against
loss due to neglect.

As to the loss of active developers to the Apple II community,
what can be said?  Certainly, no one is developing software for
our quaint platform to make a living!  I expect that the vast
majority of software developed now for the Apple II is developed
out of love, or challenge, or the fun of showing off--not for the
money.  (Even a "successful" Apple II package developed in
the last few years can't be returning to its developer more than
$1-$2 per hour--a truely hopeless proposition from a business
perspective.)

More likely, a developer quits developing because they are
ticked off by a perceived "loss of control" over the distribution
of their work.  I understand that, too, but suggest that they
consider "swimming with the stream" by regarding the net as
the most potent "viral" distribution method ever devised.  Within
a month, every interested person on the planet can have the
bits they developed in their computers, appreciating the neat
hacks of the developer and making maximum leverage of the
developer's effort.  Isn't that what it's really all about--since it's
pretty clear that one can't quit one's day job?

Nathan was a smart guy--no debate.  But he was as inflexible
in his beliefs as they come.  His ultimate departure was the
most salient case of "my way or the highway" that I have
ever seen.  I view it as inevitable that the inflexible will part
ways with any community, because staying in community
means staying flexible.

(And whoever wants to flame me as "condoning illegal behavior"
should consider first whether they have ever driven 26 mph in
a residential neighborhood.  ;-)

So, let's lighten up a bit, and do some mind stretching exercises.  ;-)

-michael

 Email:  mjmahon@aol.com
 Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/