Re: Let's create an OFFICIAL A2 Library!

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

User groups should be able to do this - a lending library, the only question is,
how do you make someone pay for fines on not returned materials?

Roy

Arkain wrote:

> 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.