Re: Who is creating asimov/images/other_archives?

[schmidtd <schmidtd@my-deja.com>]

On Dec 16, 9:48 am, "bbaker4...@gmail.com" <bbaker4...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 14, 3:24 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > bill.mart...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 1:42 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>bill.mart...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>>On Dec 14, 8:17 am, dog_...@macgui.com (D Finnigan) wrote:
>
> > >>>>Toinet wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Just wondering. I've discovered plenty of interesting materials
> > >>>>>there...
> > >>>>>antoine
>
> > >>>>>http://mirrors.apple2.org.za/ftp.apple.asimov.net/images/other_archives/
>
> > >>>>I've been contributing to it, mostly from the Vault mirrors collection,
> > >>>>which currently is not publicly accessible.
>
> > >>>>(As you may recall from a few months ago, when I was distributing a mirror
> > >>>>of whatisthe2gs.)
>
> > >>>>--
> > >>>>Mac GUI Vault - A source for retroApple IIand
> > >>>>Macintosh computing.http://macgui.com/vault/
>
> > >>>Looks like someone took it upon themselves just to copy everyone's
> > >>>websites without asking the website owners again.
>
> > >>Kind of like how thewayback machinecopies websites...
>
> > >>Although I think I understand your desire for the courtesy of
> > >>being asked, the web is actually all about copying.  Every visit
> > >>to a page gets a copy of that page, which can be saved.
>
> > >>This isn't a case of putting up uncredited, fiddled mirrors.  This
> > >>is about putting up dated archives of credited sites.  There can never
> > >>be any confusion of these archives with the live, current site.
>
> > >>Given the capricious way that web sites come and go, I can see the
> > >>value in preserving multiple archives of the most useful sites.
>
> > >>...and courtesy is also a good thing.  ;-)
>
> > >>-michael
>
> > >>NadaNet 3.1 forApple IIparallel computing!
> > >>Home page:  http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/
>
> > >>"The wastebasket is our most important design
> > >>tool--and it's seriously underused."
>
> > > I find little value in it since our web sites have been up for 10
> > > years with a total of about 12 hours downtime over that time frame.
> > > Also, just because it is on the web, doesnt mean the websites are not
> > > copyrighted or that the website owners dont want their sites copied.
> > > Unfortunately, there are a few people out there who dont respect the
> > > work that others have put into these sites, which is one reason, I am
> > > reluctant these days to put out anything more.  Courtesy is a big
> > > thing and this kind of blatant copying just goes back to the way
> > > things were in the late 1990's when there was nothing but in fighting.
>
> > I see your point, Bill.  Do you see mine?
>
> > I would hate to think that a primary motivation for your efforts
> > in making software and documents available is to exercise control
> > over them.  (And, yes, I do understand that some of your suppliers
> > may feel the need for such control.  ;-)
>
> > Copying software that is producing income for its author is quite
> > a different thing from archiving a web site.  As is copying software
> > that is not producing income for anyone, and hasn't for years.
>
> > Copyright to safeguard an income stream for a reasonable period of
> > time serves a useful purpose.  Copyright simply to exercise control
> > over the availability of material seems much more suspect.
>
> > The only benefit I can see to retaining such control is that it
> > makes "version control" easier when updates occur.  Keeping date
> > and version information "on the label" goes a long way to keeping
> > this from being a problem.
>
> > If Wikileaks teaches us anything, it is that information that can
> > be copied *cannot* be controlled.
>
> > -michael
>
> > NadaNet 3.1 forApple IIparallel computing!
> > Home page:  http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/
>
> > "The wastebasket is our most important design
> > tool--and it's seriously underused."
>
> Thank you Mike for such a reasoned response.

I've been thinking about this, especially in light of the "late 1990's
infighting" comment above.  I was actually thinking about that
infighting the day before the comment came up... because some rancor
was surfacing here.  And my conclusion, as an uninvolved observer of
the period, is that it centered around money.  Someone's ox was
getting gored, either for real or in their perception, and that always
creates bad feelings.

I think that in the current case, there's not revenues at stake for
software or softcopy documents now - but there is revenue based on
traffic.  And, just like software revenue, I can understand and
sympathize with the desire to retain that.  If exclusive and owned
content can drive traffic and revenue, that needs to be respected and
retained.  Someday, Bill will win the lottery, move to Fiji, and his
website will disappear - those that care about the content should be
prepared for that eventuality - but re-posting content today, given
what we know, is pretty bad form.  Aggregators have learned to stay
away from Syndicomm content; they need to learn to stay away from
A.P.P.L.E/applearchives.com content too.