Re: Asimov Site

[CUTblakeney@home.com (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:14:55 GMT, "**** ****" <***@***.com> wrote:

>    Hmm, you sound quite reasonable Jake. If I've somehow offended you
>personally, then I apologize.

No, I can't say that you've offended me but I do disagree with some of
your positions that you've posted here.

>However, our opinions still differ somewhat.
>Of course I'm aware that if taken to trial today, I would be subject to
>today's laws. This isn't a law forum, but of trying to turn it into one, I
>suppose I'm at least as guilty as anyone else. Most of us are quite aware of
>these laws, though, why do you suppose some are so quick to tell us yet
>another time?

I do it because people still continue to talk about illegal activities
here and as we do get new people stopping in here, it is a good idea
to point out these activities so that those new to the news group will
realize that they are illegal.

If the people who are breaking the law would stop getting to posts
pointing out their illegal activities then these threads wouldn't go
on forever like they do now.

>Why do I get the feeling their in love with them so much? Is
>it because if they weren't, they might wish to protect their own, that is
>people who love the a2, and wish to experience software that is otherwise
>impractical, if not impossible?

Yes, I know that getting some of that stuff is difficult and that is
truely unfortunate but steps are being taken to make them legally
available again.  Pretty much every month there is old software being
reclassified so that we can all enjoy it again without having to track
down a used copy somewhere.  We may not get them all reclassified but
then, does everyone need to have every single program that was ever
released for the Apple II?  I don't think so.  I still have a bunch of
games that I have never finished or played very much and I've owned
some of them for fifteen years.  I still have lots that I can do with
my Apple IIs without having to break the law.

>I'm not asking anyone here to start some
>copyright lobbyist organization, just a "hey, it does kinda stink" or even a
>"yes it has flaws, but what system doesn't" would be good enough. They
>identify with this issue so deeply, that to say the system has flaws is
>often met with stinging insult, and rarely with any intelligent debate.

Sure, I can agree that the system has flaws.  However, I'm not too
sure I want to see the length of copyrights change as I am a creative
person and I would like to own the stuff that I create.  If I make it
available to the public, then that is a bonus to the public, but if I
don't, well, that's my business and I'm sorry if my not sharing my
creation bothers someone.  Besides, if it is a truly good creation
someone else will probably create something similar and share it with
the public.

We can speculate about how to change the laws until the cows come home
but that doesn't change the fact that we have a system in place today
and we have to abide by it.

>    I honestly _DO NOT UNDERSTAND_ how such a viewpoint of mine could be
>seen as seen as piracy, or even piracy advocation.

Do you agree that by copying old, commercial, Apple II software is a
copyright violation according to todays laws and is therefore illegal
and can be termed piracy?  If you do, then your saying below that you
would look the other way if someone were to do it makes it look like
you are condoning the practice of piracy.

>I am just as vehement
>about punishing those who would endanger the livelyhood of those authors who
>still write software for our platform. The undermining of efforts to support
>the AppleII are bad enough, but to actually take money out of the pocket of
>a working man just for the hell of it is unconscionable.

That's good to hear but doesn't disrespect for the rights of the owner
of a creation as well as the time and effort he put into creating it
get you just as upset?  Especially when doing so is still against the
law?

>Do I even
>understand the history of this flamewar correctly? A few years ago, someone
>starting pirating software that was still being sold, was realtively new, as
>in only a month or two old?

There is a lot to what started the whole situation and that is
definitely part of it.  There is more to it, though.

>I'd never do anything like that, and I
>discourage those who might do the same. But if some company has 20 year old
>software, which they no longer sell, I would look the other way. It isn't
>harming that company, it's harming the LAW. Big deal. When it harms the guys
>that law was designed to protect, then, and only then should people have any
>reason to bitch.

See my comments above about looking the other way.  As to a creator
not being harmed by having a 20 year old product pirated, how do you
KNOW that creator isn't being harmed?  You won't know unless you ask
them and if you are going to ask them that, then why not ask them
about making their creation available again either commercially or by
reclassifying it.  That way everyone benefits and can be comfortable
in the knowledge that they can get that creation again legally.

The law is there to protect them and I don't see any reason why they
shouldn't be allowed to expect the full term of protection the law
gives them.

>    No, I don't have a problem with the concept of ownership, exactly, but I
>do have thoughts on how this concept might be modified slightly. Wouldn't
>even necessitate legislation, if you could trust 6 out of 10 humans to acts
>a little less like monkeys. If you think of yourself as the caretaker of a
>possession, rather than its slavemaster, that right there does enough to
>satisfy me. This goes for most anything, from land to software. Caretakers
>of historic properties often charge admission fees, this isn't bad. These
>fees actually go toward keeping that castle, or park, or whatever in a
>condition that makes people want to visit them. This is good, it's a shame
>how many historical sites can't have such a system. On the software side of
>things,  again this works. The person/company maintaining the software gets
>compensated for it, but those unwilling to "keep the museum open to the
>public" forfeit rights to it. It's not like that now, but it should be.

Personally, I don't think of myself as the caretaker of anything
unless I borrow something that belongs to someone else or we are
talking about things that don't "belong" to anyone (ie. the Earth).
If I borrow something then I am the caretaker of that possession.  It
may be just semantics, but to me, a caretaker is someone that takes
care of something that belongs to someone else.  I've visited many
castles in the past and all of them were owned by someone else.  The
caretaker just took care of it for them.  The owner of those castles
also allowed people to visit them.  I have come across some castles
and some areas of castles that the owners would not give permission
for people to visit.

I certainly don't consider myself the slavemaster of anything I own
either.  I simply feel that I am the only one with the right to do
what I want with that possession (as long as it is legal :).  That is
why I can be comfortable with the thought that my car will still be in
my driveway every morning and that it will be in pretty much the same
shape it was when I parked it there.  If I were only the caretaker of
that car, I'd have to find someone else's car that I could take care
of for them if it wasn't there the next day.  :-)


>    Heck, if two 12 year olds sneak into the amusement park, and they are
>caught, what, the police hold them til their parents pick them up? If two 19
>yr olds do the same, they get a $250 fine? Compare to software...
>inprisonment, $25,000 fines (higher than this?), forfeiture of all computer
>equipment, etc. Even this isn't as bad as those losing connectivity, for any
>other crime, they have to be convicted before being punished. Big Copyright
>Money has basically conscripted ISPs and telecom companies into a giant
>vigilante army that doesn't have to obey any of the rules that law
>enforcement authorities do.

I'm not sure exactly how this relates to what we've been talking about
but children are handled separately in the legal system.  I have some
ideas why but I won't get into them because it could take the
conversation off track even further.

As to people who have their ISPs cancel their accounts, it is usually
because those people have violated the Terms of Use that they agreed
to abide by when they signed up for that account.  It has nothing to
do with the whether the user broke the law or not.

>    Oh, and "Thank yous" are always nice if sincere, but they certainly need
>the money you spoke of. We all need to eat, except possibly lawyers who are
>rumored to feed off the souls of the damned.

I was going to post an analogy of a volunteer worker with my last post
but decided to take it out as it didn't seem to add much to my
message.  Let me add it now.  If someone were to volunteer their time
for free to a homeless shelter they would be more likely to continue
volunteering there if they feel that they are appreciated (thank yous
or other gestures that don't necessarily involve money) than they
would be if they felt they weren't appreciated.

>Trust me on this, if I thought
>that 90% of the time, software authors were getting even half the take, it
>wouldn't hurt near so bad. Don't let the others fool you though, all the "we
>must have more powerful copyright laws" in congress is all about protecting
>the fat wallets of those who never do anything we could consider useful.
>They used to be able to claim that they 'distributed' books/software/movies
>etc so efficiently that they'd grown satisified that the lame excuse would
>work forever. I mean, what other ways were there to distribute these things?
>Even someone like me who might see that this was a lame excuse, could hardly
>offer an alternative. Then the internet showed up, and it showed that these
>things didn't require much at all to distribute. And they've been scrambling
>ever since. We don't need 100 year copyrights, and before the decade is out,
>it will have grown to 500+. There is a backlash against software patents
>building, and they'll be severely restricted or banned outright in less than
>5 years. But it will be just enough, to bounce the other way, and let them
>up copyright expiration. Twisted balance, huh?

I do see some sort of shake down happening in the not too distant
future but I won't speculate as to whether it will be copyrights being
defended more vigorously or whether the copyright terms will be
lessened.

By the way, I am not someone with a fat wallet but I do appreciate the
protection I get from copyrights.

>    Despite what everyone thinks, I'm not some neo-hippy wannabe who thinks
>we can all pick flowers on some commune, and just ignore it all. I want
>improvements to goverment/economy/law, not their abolishment.

Well, you were starting to come across as a bit of an anarchist for a
while but now I think you've gone and confused everyone.  :-)

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Blakeney - Dean of the Apple II University in A2Pro on Delphi     |
|                    Delphi Apple II Forums Web Pages                    |
| A2: http://www.delphi.com/apple2   A2Pro: http://www.delphi.com/a2pro  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+