Re: Asimov Mirror Sites ... and the illegality myth

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

Rubywand wrote:

>      The plain fact is that offering the old, out-of-print software is not
> illegal. A software copyright is private property. No current anti-piracy laws,
> either in intention or in fact, are directed to the protection of software
> property which has no significant commercial value.
>

If it wasn't illegal dimwit, the owner wouldn't have a right to call in the law.

>
>      Instead, as with most private property, it is left to the oldie software
> rights owner to call for assistance to enforce ownership rights

Now, this time you did hit it on the head. But your doublespeak still creates
trouble. I need to call in the law if you steal my shovel if I wish to have my
ownership rights enforced. But I still have those rights whether I call the cops or
not, and it is still illegal, whether or not the police knock at your door.

> when this is
> desired. So, about the closest any of the old-software archives can to get to
> involvement with the Law is a civil cease and desist order. Even this is very
> unlikely since the sites routinely offer to withdraw any item if so requested
> by an owner.
>
>      Putting the above more directly, you may be sure that, were it, per se,
> illegal to distribute old, out-of-print software without the owner's express
> permission,

per se - "by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves: as such: intrinsically"
But you just pointed out above that the owner has rights, and that right is that
his/her software may only be copied with his/her permission. To violate his/her
rights is illegal "per se", and so your statement is per se, nonsense.

> we would not have spent so much time and energy debating the ethics
> of such distribution. The Law would act to enforce the supposed statutes, the
> sites would be closed, and any debates about ethics would be largely academic.
>

But, as you pointed about above, the owner has to call in the Law to protect
his/her rights, the Law is not likely to come into such a situation without the
owner's plea for aid. That is so, not just for software, but for books and records
(CDs to the youngsters around here) as well. Case in point - Metallica and the MP3
donnybrook. You didn't see the FBI start an investigation that alerted the music
industry. If the FBI is involved, it will be because the music industry wants
action and now.

>
>      It is _because_ the distribution is not illegal and because most rights
> owners choose not to express a position one way or the other

The distribution is illegal, but you get away with it because most copyright owners
choose not to call in the law. Why not? Some reasons could include: 1) It doesn't
hit their wallet so they don't care, 2) there is no profit in suing or pressing
charges, so they don't care, 3) they don't know that their software is being
distributed in this manner, so they don't care 4) the current management team might
not even be aware that they once published these works for this computer, and so
they don't care. None of those possible reasons however, makes it legal, unless you
have the immoral attitude that it's only illegal if you get caught.

> and because we do
> not wish to damage the value of anyone's property that ethical concerns have
> practical impact.
>
>      As has been demonstrated several times in the past,

I've seen it claimed, but never demonstrated.

> it is reasonable to
> conclude that having an old, out-of-print product available for download by
> users benefits the rights owner as well as those involved in creating the
> product.

How is Sierra benefited by having old Apple ][ software distributed? Wintel
software buyers aren't going to go out and buy Wintel versions of King's Quest
because the Apple ][ version is given away. And Apple ][ users can't buy a new
King's Quest for the Apple ][, so there aren't any sales, and there isn't any
benefit.

> Unless there is some special circumstance which indicates that
> availability would damage an item's value, or the owner objects, then, offering
> the product for free, open download is the reasonable, ethically correct thing
> to do.
>
>      Admittedly, talk of "illegality" adds a touch of 'speak easy' pizzazz to
> these debates.

And calling people "vogons" doesn't?

> Some users clearly enjoy the myth of skirting the Law in
> dealings with a shady Apple II underworld. Alas, 'it just ain't so'. Asimov is
> a perfectly legal, well known archive which has been around for years.
> 'Fairway, Emunation, Vault, etc. are not secrets, either.
>
>      If you can download Ultima, Bard's Tale, Champions of Krynn, etc. from
> these places, it is not because the archives are engaged in a deadly battle
> against major game makers. It is because Origin, Interplay, SSI, ... are run by
> people who know that availability of their oldies boosts sales of current
> offerings.

Pure compost. It's because there is no compelling economic interest in shutting
down those sites. The companies could do it and would if it was hurting Wintel
sales, or if there was a possibility of getting back the investment of the legal
costs. Authors, having even less capital, are in the same boat, only more so.

Roy