Re: Where is the beef???

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Willie Yeo writes ...
> 
> Rubywand wrote:
> 
> >      Quite a lot of old software is offered for sale on
> > comp.sys.apple2.marketplace and various web sites. The sellers are
> > individuals with large collections and speculators who buy up this or
> > that stock of some game oldie. So, the software is "commercially
> > available"
> 
>         That's not "commercially avaliable", that's "private individual sale". What I
> stand for is, that a company/individual that is still publishing their work
> and offering it for sale.
> 
>         A speculator who buys up a particular product who does not own the publishing
> rights and reselling them afterwards is hardly a person that I would term
> "commercially avaliable".

     We will just agree to disagree about this when it comes to a few
sellers. If Hudson's Games or SS-II buys up a bunch of boxed copies of a
game and advertises the game at a reasonable price, then, my inclination
will be to view the game as "commercially available" even though the
seller may not own the rights to "Lordlings of Yore", "Dragon Wars",
etc..


 ....

> 
>         If Claris (or Apple for that matter) still publishes and sells AppleWorks GS
> 1.1, then it is still "commercially avaliable". If Apple chooses to sell it at
> $150, then it up to the individual user to either buy a copy of it, or
> otherwise look around for something else.
>

     The point is that copyright Law provides a simple mechanism for
assuring that rights owners obtain the just fruits of their labors. If
anyone tries to distribute the owner's product against the will of the
owner, the owner can notify Law enforcement authorities and have the
distribution stopped. The owner can, also seek damages.

     In the Apple II world, we have gone 'the extra mile' to assist
copyright owners. Public archives list items available for downloading
and are on-record as agreeing to de-list any item when it is so
requested by the owner. Moreover, it is established policy that an owner
may declare a piece of software as "share ware" or "free ware" and,
still, restrict its availability on specific sites. Csa2 participants
consistently support these arrangements.

     Regarding Awks-GS, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the
rights owner has obtained substantial benefits from sales and that now,
several years after its release, there exists no market for the product
at, even, the cost of producing the manuals. If Awks-GS is not available
for download on some archive, new GS owners will, as you suggest, just
not use it.

     We can debate whether or not Awks-GS should be available for free
downloading but, really, our opinions are beside the point. _IF_ the
owner of Awks-GS or Appleworks 5 wishes to end the distribution, the
owner need only say so.


 
>         A private individual sale is hardly what I would (and many others) term as
> still "commercially avaliable".
>

     Granted, the mere existence of comp.sys.apple2.marketplace does not
guarantee "commercial availability" of any product in the sense that
"availability" means users can count upon buying a desired game, etc. at
a reasonable price. Except for a very few games and utilities, we are
dealing with day to day spot availability. I'll agree that this
situation probably falls short of the normal meaning of "commercial
availability".
 

 
> >      Obviously, there is no way for an archive to keep track of which
> > game or utility may really be available on any given day and de-list
> > or re-list items accordingly. Nearly every archive including old
> > commercial games would be forced to close.
> 
>         I did not object openly with regards to those other software, they are
> questionable, but I do not object to their presence unless the copyright owner does.
> 
>         What I am against is those titles which are still offered for sale, for
> example from ByteWorks, Seven Hills, InTrec, SSII .......
>

     Good. We agree.



 
> >      Even so, it is reasonable to believe that the usual bunch of
> > would-be archive wreckers have made every effort to inform the
> > Appleworks 5 copyright owner of its presence on a few archive sites
> > and to persuade the owner to require its removal. The owner could
> > easily have the product removed. That it remains is sufficient
> > evidence of owner approval. It is a generous gesture which II users
> > appreciate.
> 
>         It would also be reasonable to believe that most FTP admins does not like
> reading these type of mails or deny receiving any such notices. It is highly
> possible, but may not always be true.

     So far, the managers of our public archives have proved to be a
good deal more honest and straightforward than their attackers. Besides,
unlike the situation with hidden for-pay archives on Genie, Delphi,
etc., everything is out in the open. If an owner believes his/her wishes
are being ignored, the owner need merely post a complaint to Csa2 and
everyone will know.


> 
>         What we hear are words coming out of one party, not the other.

     As has been explained many times before, a copyright owner is
unlikely to say anything unless the owner objects to the presence of an
item on an archive. You, of all people, should know how difficult it is
to obtain an 'official' statement of approval.


> 
>         And how many copyright owners everyday check on thousands of FTP sites around
> the world ?

     Where are these "thousands of ftp sites" which must be checked?
There are just a few public A2 archives which receive any publicity.
These are easily checked. Actually, a copyright owner need only post a
question to Csa2 and some users will be glad to do the looking and post
a report.



> 
> >      The Treasure Chest Project as originate on Csa2 and so ably
> > managed by you seeks to have software reclassified, ideally, to
> > freeware or public domain status. As you are well aware, achieving
> > this for just one product can involve quite a lot of time and work.
> 
>         Time which I enjoy contributing and the enjoyment of those many who enjoy my efforts.
> 
> >      The payoff is that the product and copies of original
> > documentation can be maintained on any site without concern about the
> > owner requesting its removal. It can, also, often be included in
> > collections sold be A2 vendors along with printed materials.
> 
>         So you feel that either 1) I'm not doing a good job, 2) Treasure Chest
> Project is a complete was of time, 3) Nothing worthwhile is achieved through
> this, 4) You can do a better job then I can.

 ....

     Try  5) none of the above.

     Again, the reclassification achieved by the Treasure Chest Project
is the ideal outcome for a product. It provides the maximum flexibility
for use and distribution of the software and support materials. No
public or for-pay A2 archive even attempts to match what your project
achieves each time another product is recalssified.   



Rubywand