Re: Where is the beef???

[deven@MCS.COM (DEVEN ATKINSON)]

In article <35EEF0C3.548A66C6@swbell.net>,
Rubywand  <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>     There is no disagreement that copyrighted software should not be
>maintained on a site if the copyright owner objects.
>

This is where your thinking is wrong.  By copyrighting something the author
*is* already objecting.  Otherwise it would not have been copyrighted and
would have always been in the public domain.
It is silly to think that the copyright owner *can* track down every instance
of piracy and object.  The current case with CheckWorks is a fine example
of how the owner does object, but was unaware.
It is *not* incumbant on the owner to hunt down violations, it *is* incumbant
upon those uploading software to honor copyrights.
 
This attitude of 'it's okay as long as no one objects' is wrong.  Should we
treat all laws that way?  Would it be okay if you were murdered as long as
no one objected?
 
And what if some one did object?  Sorry.  Too late!
 
It is no different with software.  Once the copyrighted software appears for
download on a pirate site, the owner has already lost some profit.
Perhaps the asimov site should shell out $$$ for each download that occurred.
"Sorry" doesn't pay the bills.


>     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.      
>
If there is a copyright notice, and there is no confirmation that the status
of the software has changed, then *that* is all the proof that is needed.

>     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.
>
Many thousands of books are out of print.  The authors still own them, and
can do with them as they please.  It is not anyone's right to steal
something just because is no longer available for sale.
>
>     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.
>
Again.  Was there a copyright notice?  Was there any document indicating that
the software's status had changed?  These questions are enough to determine
if software should be made available for free.  If the answers to the questions
are YES and NO respectively, then it should not be uploaded.  Obscurity has
nothing to do with it.

>     Fortunately, Asimov is a public site which lists its contents. The
>problem was detected and it was corrected.
>
>     
How much profit did Joe miss out on?  Who is going to make that up to him?
Who is going to *correct* that problem?
The damage has already been done.

>
>> 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.
>
>
Wrong.  Your attitude, (and asimovs), gives creedence to the idea that
piracy is okay as long as you are not caught.
The only way to stop piracy is to remove every piece of software from
every public forum until such a time as the copyright owner changes
the status of their property.

>     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.  If the owner wants to be generous then there should be
*proof* that thier wish is that the status of the software has changed.
Or, shall we condem the owner's right to profit and continue to maintain
it on a pirate board?
This hurts more than the original owner, Jeff.  It also hurts secondary
distributors and those wishing to sell used copies in .marketplace.
It hurts the Apple ][ community.

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