Let's create an OFFICIAL A2 Library!

["Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net>]

Read my reply below first, then come back.

It seems that libraries are protected from the copyright act. If we could
start a public library of A2 programs and documentation, then we could
(easily?) circumvent the copyright problem that the "vogons" seem to have
with the A2 material. Does anyone have an idea of how to do this?

Arkain
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: vogons vs Users


> I think your positive approach is commendable.

Thanks.

> However, I think the effort is somewhat quixotic.

I know... The problem is in finding someone that wants to do anything about
it. Those who complain that there's a problem don't want to act on it, while
the others don't think there's a problem to act on. In both cases, nothing
gets done.

> Consider these issues:
>
> 1.  In 1998, congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
> (CTEA), which *added* 20 years to existing copyrights.
>
> 2.  In 1999, a Constitutional challenge to the CTEA lost in the US
District
> Court for the District of Columbia (although an appeal is underway).
>
> 3.  No Copyright Act has decreased the term of copyright, or limited the
> exclusive rights of authors (with a few exceptions such as archival
> back-ups, time-shifting and fair use).
>
> 4.  The current Copyright Act already contains language (Section 108)
which
> allow libraries to make copies of copyrighted material for archival
purposes
> and to make those copies available for use within the library premises (so
> the argument that the software will be lost forever has little validity).

The part that you're missing is in that the act refers to *printed*
materials. This is what the law was originally designed for. This is also
why it is required that a program's source code be printed out in order to
submit the program for copyright. There are no provisions anywhere in the
act to properly handle the software industry. It is very reasonable to
assume that a song or a book will still be viable 70 years after the
singer/author has died. The same isn't even remotely true for software.
Except for heavily customized software that is maintained in-house, the
likelihood of a particular version of a program lasting on the market for
more than 10 years is nearly infinitessimal... and that's while the owner is
still alive!

> I would conclude that there is no meaningful likelihood of amending the
> current Copyright Act.  Practically speaking, this legislation would be
> opposed across the software industry.

I know, but I also know how to word the request in such a way that the
software industry couldn't refute my claims... despide the fact that IANAL.

> A final issue is that many computer programs, even ones for obsolete
> platforms, include elements that are otherwise copyrighted (screen
displays,
> narrative elements, etc.).  For example, I have a commercial copy of Star
> Trek First Contact for the Apple II (Simon & Schuster, 1988).  I have also
> seen this game on some of the archive sites.  Whether or not this program
is
> sold or supported, it is impossible to conceive of an alteration in the
> copyright law that would permit this program (while Paramount still lives
> and breathes) to become public domain, given the strong commercial value
of
> the characters and story elements.

The characters and story elements are protected by a different IP act. The
game itself as a whole is what is copyrighted. The game can be released from
it's copyright without violation the IP priviliges of Paramount.

> Even if you limit your efforts to properties where the corporate entity
that
> owned the software is defunct or the authors dead, usually, these
properties
> have passed to some other person or entity by operation of law (heirs,
eg).
> And because often no one can predict when intellectual property might
become
> valuable, no constituency that benefits from the exclusive rights
conferred
> by the copyright laws is going to wish to give up these rights.

Apple 2 property is *ALREADY* valuable. I'm saying that the owners need to
either "piss or get off the pot!" if you catch my drift.

> My advice:  concentrate you energies in two directions:  (1) encouraging
> libraries to maintain archives of older or obsolete software (the Library
of
> Congress does this) and

That gives me an idea...
Read the top if you haven't already.

> (2)  creating a credible means to validate that a
> software work has been placed in the public domain (a clearinghouse of
> sorts).  Many of the squabbles could be avoided if folks could be
reasonably
> certain that an item had been made PD.

That's what I've been saying. First try to change the authors/copyright
holders. If that doesn't work then try to change the laws.