Re: Apple II Reference Manual ("Red Book")

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <20000418131328.03464.00001627@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
Regnirps <regnirps@aol.com> wrote:
 
> pausch@saafNOSPAM.se  (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> Regnirps <regnirps@aol.com> wrote:
>  
>>> pausch@saafNOSPAM.se  (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>   
>>>> I think Apple Computer would have some similar considerations to make
>>>> if they evern thought about suing people posting obsolete software
>>>> for and info about the Apple II: even if done illegally, Apple would
>>>> have more to lose than to gain from trying to sue these people.
>  
>>> I understand the marketing and psychology, but do you think this
>>> justifies an immoral act?
>  
>>An immoral act is by definition never justified.  If an act is justified,
>>it cannot be immoral.
>  
>>Considering distributing copies of Apple's "Red Book": is it illegal?
>>Probably, but you should really ask a lawyer rather than me about
>>that.  Is it immoral?  I don't think so - why?  Because if an act is
>>to be immoral, it must hurt someone in some way.  If no-one is hurt
>>in any way by some act, where's the immorality of the act?
> 
> You make the assumption that what someone is not using now will nerver
> be used and is therefore free for the taking.
 
Yes, I make the very reasonable assumption that the Apple II never
again will become a computer with commercial value: it will never be
manufactured again, I believe.  And in the extremely unlikely case
that it would, I'm quite convinced it would be an Apple II much more
like the IIgs than the original Apple II, and the Red Book wouldn't
be of much use to users of such an Apple II.
 
> Say I have two shovels and you have none. You need one. Is taking one
> of mine immoral? After all I can only use one at a time. But you forget
> that I might have plans to hire someone to help with the other.
 
I have family members who could use that shovel.  And I could sell it.
 
> Yes, this theft is immoral even though you have not immediatly hurt
> someone.  I had to work to get the shovel and you will have basically
> stolen X hours of my limited life's work as well as injured my ability
> to carry out my plans for the future.
 
I agree completely with you here.  To steal my shovel would be
equivalent to e.g. stealing someone's old Apple II, or someone's old
copy of the Red Book, which might interfere with that person's plans
to make the contents of the Red Book available to the Apple II
community.  I hope you realize that I've never ever advocated such
theft.
 
But distributing compies isn't the same as stealing the original.
Suppose that you, instead of stealing my shovel, made photocopies of
my shovel, or took a photograph of it, which you distributed for free
among your friend.  Would there be any objection against such an
action?  I can't find one....
 
Or you could even, in your woodworkshop, make actual copies of my
shovels, i.e. new shovels which looked the same, and give it to your
friends.  I wouldn't mind the slightest bit if you did so, as long as
you left *my* shovel alone.
 
 
To get things in perspective: we're talking about making copies
here, not about stealing originals....
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch