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

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <NBoK4.72$Tg1.196806@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net>,
Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote:
 
> Paul Schlyter wrote in message <8dbnto$m6q$1@merope.saaf.se>...
> 
>> Also: suppose your copyrighted work is some 20+ years old, and that
>> it lost all its commercial value some 10+ years ago and it would be
>> very unlikely to ever regain any commercial value.  Also suppose that
>> if someone would approach you with a request of buying your work,
>> then your response would be "Sorry, but we no longer sell that
>> stuff!"  (if someone would ask Apple Computer about buying some Apple
>> II stuff, a response along these lines would be likely).  Given these
>> circumstances, suppose someone "illegally" made copies of your work,
>> and you later learnt about it.  There would be no economic damage to
>> you since you no longer sold your work.  Would you still bother to
>> sue?
>> 
>> In short: do you defend copyrights because they are of some real
>> value?  Or do you defend it as a principle in absurdum, even in
>> those cases where the copyright has lost all its value?
> 
> This is an interesting discussion!
> 
> Section 504 of the Copyright Act may be of some interest.  This allows a
> copyright holder whose work has been illegally copied to elect statutory
> damages (which may range between $500 and $100,000 for a registered work),
> instead of actual damages.  Attorney's fees may also be recovered.
 
OK -- let's for the sake of the discussion imagine that someone
posted cans of that "Red Book" without having obtained the proper
permission.  Next, assume Apple hears about this, and doesn't like
it.  Do you think Apple would sue?  I think that would be very
unlikely.  What would Apple gain from such an action?  Very little,
since the copyrighted work no longer has any commercial value.  What
would they lose?  They'd gather a lot of bad-will, and could easily
lose a lot of customers.
 
There's an interesting story about something similar.  You know what
ZIP files are, right?  The original programs which used these files
were PKZIP and PKUNZIP, by PKware, back in 1988 or so.  Versions of
PKZIP and PKUNZIP are still around.  Anyway, before 1988, PKware had
other programs -- PKARC and PKXARC -- which used another archive
format, ARC, created by another company named SEA.  SEA also had an
archiving program, simply named ARC, which was big and slow.
PKARC/PKXARC were smaller and faster, and even introduced a new
compression format which made ARC archives smaller.  SEA didn't like
the competition, so they sued PKware, because PKware had used their
proprietary archive format without permission.  SEA won the case
against PKware, and PKware was forced to cease distributing PKARC/PKXARC.
 
A few months later, PKware reappeared with the ZIP archive format,
plus the programs PKZIP/PKUNZIP.  The customers strongly disliked
ARC's action, and abandoned ARC files as soon as ZIP files became
available.  Nowadays everyone use ZIP files (PKware released that
archive file format into the public domain btw), and few people have
heard about ARC files.  Even though SEA won the case, they lost the
market.
 
 
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.
 
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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