Re: the status of Apple system software & vogon hypocrisy

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Dain Neater writes ...
>
> <Rubywand wrote:>
>
> > The point in identifying ROM code and, possibly, other copyright
> > violations is to demonstrate that those who attack archives and call
> > users "pirates" will excuse, 'crawfish', or otherwise ignore what
> > they call "piracy" when it is practiced by themselves or members of
> > their own clique. Once you know this, it is much easier to set aside
> > their moral posturing and just evaluate the facts.
> >
> >
> >
> > Rubywand
>
>
> Rubywand,
>   What is your problem with being called a pirate anyway?
 ....
 
     Two things: 1- I believe the charge is untrue. And  2- There is a cost
in not being a genuine pirate. For instance, you do not get to use some piece
of current commercial software unless you buy it or review it (which is,
generally, more 'expensive' than just buying the software).

     When you put up with the costs of not being a genuine pirate, you are
naturally annoyed when someone charges you with "software piracy".


> Why try to put yourself on an innocent pedastal. 
> You aren't and neither is anyone who has copied software
> protected by the copyright laws(you don't see a bunch of
> people waving, I am innocent flags around here).

     Lots of long-time users engaged in software swapping back in the
early/mid 1980's. Me, too. By today's standards, we would have been
"pirates".

     If your point is that we all fall short of the ideal, there is no
disagreement. Certainly, among all the wares we swapped, there were a few
utilities and games that were actually used and should have been purchased.
Three games that come to mind are Sneakers, Sherwood Forest, and Caverns of
Freitag. Most of the wares-- something above 90%-- were tried once or twice
and merely collected.

     Really, though, there was so much software and so few decent reviews in
the major publications that getting a pirate copy and trying a product was
the only way to avoid spending humongous sums on weakies or outright lemons.
We ended up investing in originals (with boxes, docs, etc.) of most of the
games and utilities we actually liked and used. To some extent, this was
probably true for many other software swappers. 

     In any case, some instances of past "piracy" does not make one a pirate
today. If past piracy made one forever a Pirate, then you need go no further
than today's most strident "Anti-Piracy" crusaders to find some of the
biggest for-real Apple II software Pirates! who ever lived.


     Regarding the "Innocent Pedestal" you mention, that seems to be a
construction of the vogon types. They're the ones who wrap themselves in
Morality and call everyone (except each other) "pirates" for 'violating'
ancient software copyrights. The rest of us, like 99.9% of users, go about
our business on the ground.


> 
> There is no evil 'clique' that you speak of,

     Well, there is definitely a small clique which separates itself from the
majority of Apple II users on some important issues. Probably the most
important difference is their absurd claim that downloading ancient
commercial software without verifiable permission is "piracy". Meanwhile,
these people have no problem excusing this sort of piracy when they do it.

Which brings up the question: How many vogons can dance on a pedestal?
Evidently, not too many, since they keep falling off.


    "Evil"? Of course, we are not talking about war crimes; but, if you
insist upon the term, then, yes. It is bad/wrong/evil to tell newbies that
they are thieves and pirates for downloading ancient software, especially
since the downloading is virtually always beneficial to the rights owners.

     The truth is that genuine Apple II software piracy-- i.e. acting in some
way which deprives someone of legitimate revenues from a software product--
is very rare. I guess it probably occurs with respect to unpaid shareware
fees; but, even then, you have mitigating factors (e.g. the software is still
being 'tried out' and/or the software is so old that the user questions that
it remains shareware or doubts that the payment address is still valid).



> only this.  There are a few
> people who really don't like you or Dr. Tom(I personally try not to waste
> time on you guys).

     Yet here you are, wasting time on us guys.

     As for not being liked by the "few people", you mention: I wonder if
that's true. Occasional feelings of annoyance are one thing; but, does anyone
really waste energy on actively disliking those who disagree with them on the
issues we've discussed?

     Still, now that you suggest the idea, it is sort of flattering to
imagine that a cadre of vogons is gathered somewhere over a stale pizza
glumly muttering about the doings of that "slimy devil, Rubywand"! 



> It happens everyday, get used to it.  (Life is tough
> wear a cup.)  This Clique you speak of,  doesn't control
> anyone, they don't dictate some evil plan to keep you
> labeled a pirate, or Dr.Tom a blatent
> plagerist and pirate,you guys do a pretty good job of
> that yourself.

     Whatever. You are correct in one observation: those few who continue to
oppose the beliefs and wishes of the other 99.9% of users are not going to
control much of anything. One would expect that to be obvious.



> (  Why do you take articles such as Bart's article on
> his Network at home and make it look like someone contributed
> to your GSWorldView, it makes you guys look
> like clowns and worthless dog meat in the publishing world)
>
     Bart seemed to appreciate the recognition of his efforts (which, by the
way, credits him fully).  And, yes, putting together the article with a
reduced-size feather-cropped pic, go/return diagram, and a custom background
in a nice html format was a fair bit of work. (Did notice that there is not
an active link to his home page. One has been added.)


> I really could give a crap about these archives you speak of,
> and care even less about Electronic Arts getting any residuals
> from their old software,
 ....

     Not being concerned about benefits to rights owners (like Electronic
Arts) is typical for your bunch. Also typical is that it is not a very bright
position. 



> what pisses me off the most, is that someone didn't speak
> up about what you guys do, copies of everything still available
> commercially would be on your web sites in a second.
> You would screw every last software producer (and no
> Rubywand, I am not speaking of some clique(tm), I mean
> every developer) out of their software and their rights to
> distribute it however they see fit be
> it free, or a million dollar shareware fee.  You of course
> would see this as a service to the users.

     The last time someone offered a piece of current commercial software for
swapping on a net site, you and your pals sat on their thumbs. It was one of
'us guys' who contacted the site admin about the software, which, as it
turned out, had been listed by accident. The software was delisted and the
revenues of My eSource were protected.


> 
> I appologize to csa2.
>

     Instead of apologizing for messing up, why not get rid of the mess ups
before posting?
 



Rubywand