Re: Asimov Site

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Rubywand wrote:

>
> > 1) Some (but not all) ftp/http sites have copyrighted software on them - this is
> > a violation of the copyright laws.
> > 2) Some one has contacted some (all?) of the companies that hosted those sites,
> > pointing out that there are illegal copies of software offered through their
> > hardware and net connections, and that this could make them liable for suit.
> > 3) Some (all?) of those companies have pulled such sites, forcing those who like
> > to offer such software to search for new locations. It is further alleged these
> > individuals like to utilize the uninformed Apple II supporter to host such,
> > while not being willing to do it themselves. On the other hand, it is asserted
> > that those who have been contacting the ISPs are busybodies and overly concerned
> > with the letter of the law.
> >
> > All of the above, and it's moral, ethical, legal, and astrological
> > justifications and consequences have been debated here for several centuries (or
> > so it seems.)
> >
> > I'm confident that my attempt to present the bare facts of the context will be
> > responded to and another cycle will begin, because, even though I tried to
> > present the facts in a neutral manner, since I'm not neutral, someone will feel
> > compelled to dispute the above, and perhaps flame me.
>  ....
>
>      Flame? Nope. "Another new cycle"? Not likely; no need.
>
>      First, as a check of sites like ...

>
> <snip>

> and several others will show, most of the so-called "illegal" sites are operating just
> fine.
>

I had said "some" not "all" or even "most".

>
>      What will happen is this ...  One or more new Asimov sites will be established on
> ISPs that care more about staying in business than pleasing whining emailers. Complaints
> to these ISPs will simply bounce. The Law will do nothing because, contrary to your
> claims, no law is being violated.

Sigh.
Oh, so there isn't a law that forbids the copying of copyrighted items without permission of
the copyright owner?
Common Ruby, you know better than that. Whether "The Law" will do something or not is
separate from what the copyright laws say. Nth verse, same as the first. And we have seen,
in the last few weeks, not only Apple II sites disappear, but at least one Mac site that
does the same thing. Mac software that is as old or older than some Apple II software is no
longer on the web, because it is a violation of the copyright laws, and the SPA did
something about it. If it weren't a violation, and the SPA sued, the court would throw it
out as a frivolous lawsuit. You know that, (or should.) ISP owners don't want to lose
customers, but they don't want to have to defend themselves in court either. Now, if you
were to own your own ISP, then you might have protection from harassment, until you are sued
that is.

> You will be left to explain how it is that these
> supposedly "illegal" sites (together with many other abandonware sites)

"Abandonware" is not a legal term, and has no legal standing.

> continue to
> operate freely and openly.

Easy, "The Law" has more important things to do than be involved in kids stealing milk money
from other kids, and for the theft of software that is no longer sold or serviced, but is
still copyrighted. Only ISPs that fear lawsuits will remove such sites, and when such a
threat appears, the ISPs will remove such sites.

Now, you can explain how Apple II and Mac sites are disappearing when they are, from what
you claim, engaging in perfectly legal activities.

Roy