Re: Where is the beef???

[pfg@cs.rmit.edu.au (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

CUTjefbla@bconnex.net (Jeff Blakeney) writes:

>On 5 Sep 1998 02:58:27 GMT, pfg@cs.rmit.edu.au (Paul Francis Gilbert)
>wrote:

>>If I may interject ;-), the real bottom line here is that copyright law is
>>a weapon for the copyright owner to use. Period. So, Nathan, for example 

>Copyright law is not a weapon.  It is not used for offense, it is used
>for defense. Defense of the copyrighted material.

It *IS* a weapon. I know how violently you're against archiving, Jeff, but
please at least don't fall into the Mates-trap. ;-). Copyright law *is*
a weapon. It a means under law for authors to persue those who copy their
product. There is *no* mystical property of software that makes a copyrighted
software involiate... it is up to the author to persue copyright breaches,
and in fact there are many cases where copyright has lapsed because the
owner didn't bother to protect it.

>The copyright holders have already place that "cease and desist"
>request on their material when they copyrighted it.  For example, here
>is the copyright info from Accolade's Space Station software for the
>Apple II:

<snipping example>

No it's not. You seem to be having trouble differentiating the copyright
statement and actual copyright law. The copyright notice explicitly states
copyright. However, there is *NOTHING* in copyright law that makes copying
a copyrighted material a criminal offense. That's why it's always the author
who comes after you with lawyers, not the police. Copyright law *is a weapon*
for an author to protect his works, nothing else.

>So why is this stuff being made available on asimov?  It is asimov's
>self-professed policy to not make software available that the
>copyright holder has asked them not to distribute and as they have
>already done that, why is it still being made available?

Probably because despite your fantasies (and sorry if this sound a bit 
insulting), there is nothing on Asimov currently whose authors object to it.
Just because you might object to something and let the author know it's on
Asimov, doesn't automatically make the author disaprove of it. And a 20 year
old copyright statement is hardly any grounds for making assumptions about
the owners current policy (even if the company that made it exists any more).

I for one am glad of Asimov. Let's be honest here... apart from those companys
making newer games in a "series" (like Ultima, Zork, etc.) most Apple//e
authors/companys really don't give a shit about their old games anymore.
They won't even take the time to reclassify it (since it apparently takes
money), so the best plicy for Asimov is to do what it does. If you wan't to
be a saint, you can use the Treasure Chest project, but for the rest of us,
we'll keep on using Asimov.

Cheers.

--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (The DreamMaster)
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 5, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.