Re: Where is the beef???

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

DEVEN ATKINSON writes ...
 
....

> It is the same as expecting
> someone who has just been mugged to announce that the mugger missed
> stealing some of the money.  Honestly!  Joe already asked for it to be
> removed, which means he has identifed it to the asimov op.

     There is no disagreement that copyrighted software should not be
maintained on a site if the copyright owner objects.

     In a case when a seller posts a charge of "piracy", it is necessary
that users insist upon having such basic facts as _what_ was "pirated"
and the status of the "pirated" software. Otherwise, you are inviting
the proliferation of lies and slander.      

     In this particular case we had a misunderstanding between an
archive site and the copyright holder. The archive received the software
as an upload like many others. It is an obscure program which hardly
anyone would be likely to recognize as being sold anywhere today-- let
alone one being sold by the copyright owner. The owner-seller was
notified by someone who saw the software listing on the site and
requested its removal. After some confusion about whether or not the
program was still available on the archive, the matter was settled.



> Which is backwords, he shouldn't have to ask that pirated software be
> removed from any site.  It should not have been pirated in the first place.
> Sugar coat it all you like, but it is still theft.

     If there was any theft in this situation, it was on the part of the
person who uploaded the software and, even there, only if the uploader
had any reason to believe the software should not be uploaded. Remember,
we are talking about an obscure piece of software owned by a seller who
has repeatedly been asked to list his products and prices on
comp.sys.apple2.marketplace and, repeatedly, refused to do so.

     Fortunately, Asimov is a public site which lists its contents. The
problem was detected and it was corrected.

     

> And by announcing and promoting the download of copyrighted software, you
> are an accessory.  Or didn't you know that Appleworks is copyrighted?
>

     Virtually _every_ piece of software on every public and
members-only archive is copyrighted. Also, most of the Apple II software
on public and members-only archives is there without the express
permission of the copyright owner.

     About the best we can do to suppress true software piracy is to 

1. provide an open public forum where owner complaints can be brought to
the attention of users; and,

2. support public archives which list their contents and which will
remove a piece of software when requested to do so by the copyright
owner.


     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?



Rubywand