Re: Where is the beef???

[deven@MCS.COM (DEVEN ATKINSON)]

In article <35F069A2.CBB4FEF1@swbell.net>,
Rubywand  <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
>DEVEN ATKINSON writes ...
>> 
>> Rubywand wrote:
>> 
>> >> Again wrong.  The reasonable conclusion is that the actual copyright owner
>> >> is unaware.
>>  >....
>>  >    In Oz, maybe.
>> 
>> So.  Joe Kohn lives in Oz.  I could have sworn he lived in California.
>>
>
>     Tsk. The context of the comment was Appleworks 5:
>
No, I mentioned CheckWorks when discussing the copyright holder being aware.
A bit that you snipped out of your reply.  In the context of Checkworks is your
comment still valid?  Even though Joe has an online presence, even though
Joe has established that he actively defends his (and those he sells for)
copyrights, he was still unaware for a significant period of time.  He has now
had to ask the community in general to help him because of this incident.

>> >     If, despite numerous vocal complaints by some, Appleworks 5 is
>> >still present on an archive, the reasonable, sane conclusion is that the
>> >actual copyright owner does not mind. If the owner of product rights
>> >does not object, what is it you expect users to do? Shall we condemn the
>> >owner's generosity and demand that the product be removed from all
>> >archives?
>> >
>> Again wrong.  The reasonable conclusion is that the actual copyright owner
>> is unaware.
> ....
>
>     In Oz, maybe.
>
And is Scantron aware?  Has anyone *asked* them?
(just for the record I did mention CheckWorks in a later portion of the
original post)

>     Consider the rabid attempts by a few wrecker types to close down
>our archives. Now add the complaints regarding Awks 5's listing by a rep
>for a seller. Clearly, any notion that the Awks 5 copyright owner has
>not, long ago, been informed of the product's availability on Asimov
>must come from some alternate reality.
>
Okay.  Tell me.  Who has informed Scantron?
*If* they want it to be freeware now, it would be great news!  They still
sell it though.  I guess that means they expect to get money from those
who obtain a copy.

>     It would be easy for the actual owner of Appleworks 5 to have the
>product de-listed. The owner has Asimov's own stated guarantee, the
>force of Law, and consistent expressions of Csa2 support for ownership
>rights.
>
Would you be suprised if Scantron filed law suits?
After all they don't have to ask first.  They could just sue.  Not saying
that they will, just that they can.
>> I can see you honestly beleive your stand on this copyright issue.
>> Bottom line is: If you do not own the copyright, you have no right to copy
>> unless the owner gives you permission.
>> 
>> I find it curious that you ignored the issue about already lost profits.
>> Who is going to pay Joe for the downloads that occurred to CheckWorks??
>>
>
>     If you like, you can.
>
Don't be flippant, it looks bad.  Yet you tacitly acknowledge that profits
were lost if us stipulate that I could pay them.  Which means you agree that
theft occurred, you just don't care.

>     The problem is that it is not clear what, if any, damages occurred
>and who, if anyone, is to blame. The product would be unknown to anyone
>who had not visited Joe's site and remembered it from his lists. We do
>not even know that the uploader was aware that he/she was uploading a
>currently available product.
>
Perhaps the uploader should have looked around first.  Or is that to much
to ask?

It is less onerous then asking the copyright owner to scour the nets daily
to protect thier own property.

>     Fortunately, Asimov is an open public archive. Someone detected the
>error and it was corrected.
>
No.  The error was finally stopped.  To correct it then Joe should receive
hard cash for each download.  Or do you think it is not his right to earn
money on software that he owns the copyright for?
>> And for the record, I am not against archive sites.  Only those that support
>> piracy.  If asimov took the attitude that they will *only* make software
>> available if they have permission then they would not be a pirate site.
>> I think that retaining software against loss is a noble idea.  They should
>> not allow downloads *until* they know what status the software is.
>>
>
>     It is well established that archives do not need to obtain explicit
>permissions. If you do not like this, seek a change in copyright law. At
>present, charges of "piracy" against responsible archives like Asimov
>amount to slander. Attacks on our archives by self-appointed "moral"
>crusaders who refuse to abide by the Law are nothing but vigilantism.
>
>
This sounds very arrogant.  Pray you are never in the position that Joe
is.  You might actually feel bad about your attitude.

I don't want to shut asimov down.  I want it to be more responsible to
a valiant group of people who are still trying to keep the Apple ][
line viable enough that there is a chance that they can *afford* to keep
producing and selling software.


-- 
Regards,
Deven D. Atkinson
deven@mcs.net   <*>