Re: n...

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

attrax writes ...
> 
> <nobody@wavetech.net (Greg Buchner) wrote: >
> >  It was the fact that Rubywand's trying to fantasize that sites like
> >  Asimov are legal  ................
> >
> >  I think if Rubywand would just say that copying out of date
> >  copyrighted software is illegal, this discussion would probably go
> >  away.
> >  Greg B.
> 
> The Rubywand entity will have to speak for itself.
 ....

LOL! "entity" Cool!

     Your first posting on this issue did a very nice job of wrapping things
up. The on-target questions re: "Where are the REAL aggrieved parties?"
constitute a perfect illustration of a 'BONK on the noggin' Reality check.
You'd think anyone could put the facts together and come up with the only
conclusion that makes sense: "Hey, maybe there _aren't_ any aggrieved copyright
owners!" (duh).

     Of course, since you are arguing from principle, most of your observations
simply did not register with the other side. For them Right and Wrong comes
down to "legal" and "illegal" as warped by an utter lack of understanding for
the Law, total disassociation from reality, and their own childish desires to
wreck the archives because they can not control them.

     You confused them with the truth.

     The truth, naturally, was never up for some vote of approval by would-be
wreckers. Asimov and similar sites have undergone every reasonably possible
test for "legality" and always passed. They operate legally and, more
important, what they do for the Apple II community _and_ rights owners is good
and proper.

     1999 has been very good for Apple II and II emu users. Thanks to the work
of those who maintain Ground, Tarnover, Florida, Caltech, Asimov, Uni-kl.de,
USA2WUG, XGS, Trenco, Vault, 'Fairway and other free, public archives, access
to software is better than ever. As we enter the new millenium, there is every
reason to expect that the archives and II computing will continue to prosper.



Rubywand