Re: Where is the beef???

[Willie Yeo <w.yeo@qut.edu.au>]

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".

>      Naturally, a few sellers are not honest or they are slow to send
> items to purchasers or the games they offer are at 'collector item'
> prices. Besides which, a number of ads are out of date and items
> listed are no longer available.

	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.

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

>      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 .......

>      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.

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

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

>      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.
 
>      It is unfortunate that you appear to feel that the mission of
> major archives like Asimov, Asimov-GS, and Uni-kl.de conflicts with
> the mission of the Treasure Chest Project. Actually, there is no
> conflict.

	On the contary, you always misunderstood (for such a long time !) that what I
repeatedly said :

	I am *AGAINST* software that are "commercially avaliable" (i.e. the owner is
still publishing and selling it through the commercial retail channels).

	I have not said one word of the other software titles.

	I find a big challenge in having my mission of reclassifying as much as the
software that are avaliable of Asimov or Asimov GS.

	As I said, their existence is questionable.