Re: Where is the beef???

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

I can see that I soon will be categorised as another Nathanist, but I guess
if you guys want csa2 to be openly critical, then nobody should flame someone
else who wishes to throw 2 cents into any ideas, comments or suggestions.

Rubywand wrote:

>      For someone with no legal standing in the matter (such as
> yourself) the legally correct course is to contact the owner of the
> rights to the product and make your wishes about what the owner
> should do with it known. The owner can, then, choose whether or not
> to follow your advice.

	In the eyes of the legal system, of course you do not distribute a piece of
software, then tell the copyright owner that you are distributing the
software, and finally asked if they mind you distributing it.

	In the case of commercially published & avaible for purchase software, then
it is the above is legally wrong. It does not mean that if you are in a
state/country that does not have a distributor for it you are allowed to
distribute it, where the owner chose to have it sold from one location.

	If you think that's wrong, why are people penalised (fine/jail) for knowingly
(illegally) distributing copies of e.g. Windows NT, Norton Utilities,
Photoshop (etc etc etc ?). It does not matter what software it is, the thing
is, it is still *WRONG*.

>      Evidently, at present, the actual owner of the rights to 
> Appleworks 5 is satisfied with the situation and so are the legally
> constituted Law enforcement agencies. This may displease you; but,
> you do not own Appleworks 5.

	Rubywand, I wasn't making any reference to AppleWorks 5. I am talking about
morally, FTP admins should *NOT* place commercially avaliable software on
their FTP sites that are publicily avaliable to everyone, especially.

	AppleWorks 5 does fall into this category, but my follow up to Paul's remark
does not specifically said any particular title, but commercially avaliable
software in general.

>      Regarding the presence of Appleworks 5 on archives and this
> being "objectionable"-- why?

	Because it is still being sold, you are depriving the authors of any
royalites that are due to them, and if everyone is buying a copy of it and the
authors get moral support, they will be more willing to update the software,
write more programs for the Apple II.

	And I am mentioning this as a reference to commercially avaliable software.

>      Yes; users do wish to support established Apple II sellers who
> make products available. Is Appleworks 5 available from any
> established seller?

	So is Scantron Quality Computers not one ? So if Apple where to sell Apple
Computers only from AppleCenters, does it mean that 'any' established seller
has to include a supermarket like K-mart ? Or a PeeCee shop that sells only
PeeCees ?

	I remember that I subscribe to the II Alive magazine from Australia, of which
I believe you are the editor. Of which I was hoping for more II Alive
magazines, which would also have contributed to the staff's salaries.

>      The supposed current seller does not list the product on its web
> site. In fact, we do not actually know whether or not it is still
> available. Then, too, the most recently listed price for Appleworks 5
> was around $100.

	Just because it is priced at $100 means that you have to pirate the software
? In the real computing world, if you do not wish to pay for a product, do you
go and find an alternative ?

>      Everyone knows that the chances of actually selling the product
> at such an outrageous price are just about zero. Clearly, the
> "seller" is not really making Appleworks 5 available; the "seller" is
> sitting on the product. If Appleworks 5 were not available via
> archives, most new A2 owners would not use it. Those who develop
> products which support Appleworks 5 or which depend upon it would
> have a smaller market.

	Whatever the company chose to sell the product at what price is not up to the
say of the users. Turnover of the sale of the product will indicate to them
that it will be over-priced and they will decide themselves.

	Making AppleWorks 5 publicily avaliable illegally does not guarantee that
each person who downloads it *WILL* buy it.

>      Rather than complaining about the presence of Appleworks 5 on A2
> archive sites, you should be expressing thanks. Both the archives and
> the copyright owner deserve the gratitude of Apple II users.

	I will thank the copyright owner if they decide to reclassify the software as
freeware or shareware.