Re: Where is the beef???

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

DEVEN ATKINSON writes ...
> 
> 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.


     Incorrect. First you imply that software must explicitly be
copyrighted. This is not the way things work. Software is automatically
copyrighted. Second, a copyright is not an automatic objection to
copying. It establishes the right for the copyright owner to object.


> Otherwise it would not have been copyrighted and 
> would have always been in the public domain.

     Incorrect. Many old games were, at one time, well worth owning and
selling.

     Many copyright owners wish to retain their old software copyrights.
For one thing, it makes it easier to sell "Classic Game" re-releases on
another platform and, in some cases, helps to establish ownership of a
continuing series (e.g. Ultima).

     Then, too, the copyrighting is automatic. Having one costs nothing.
On the other hand, changing a product's status to "public domain" can
involve some legal work and some cost. At the least, it involves bother
for someone. The owner is always free to object or not object to
copying. Why should a copyright owner bother to change a product's
status?

     Meanwhile, it is easy to demonstrate that there are solid benefits
to the copyright owner in having some old game available for
downloading. Users who like an old game with your label are more likely
to purchase one of your current offerings. The software companies with
products on Asimov would, probably, pay to have their oldies available
for free downloading except, of course, that Asimov and other archives
already provide the service free.  


> It is silly to think that the copyright owner *can* track down every instance
> of piracy and object.

....

     True. However, the idea behind copyrights is that the owner can
prevent significant losses. Consequently, no one gets especially excited
when a rented video tape is copied by a home user. But, when someone
starts copying and selling the tape, there is a good chance they will be
nailed and have to pay damages.

     In the particular case under discussion, the owner did not track
down anything. He was told about the incorrect listing of his product by
a user.

     As long as archives operate in the open, it is relatively easy to
check them for products which should not be listed and to correct the
error.



> 
> This attitude of 'it's okay as long as no one objects' is wrong.

     You need to take up you ideas with those responsible for creating
copyright law.


> Should we
> treat all laws that way?

     We should treat laws in a legally correct manner. In the case of
copyright law, the perogatives and responsibilities of the copyright
owner are clear. 


> Would it be okay if you were murdered as long as
> no one objected?

LOL! Of course not. It would be a terrible loss; but, then, I'm biased.

 ....


> >     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?

     Again, there does not need to be. A copyright is assumed.


> Was there any document indicating that
> the software's status had changed?

     Probably not, for the simple reason that nearly all software _is_
copyrighted and most copyright owners see no reason to change a
product's status.



> These questions are enough to determine
> if software should be made available for free.

     Unfortunately for your argument, this is not the way copyright law
works. If you desire proof, notice that those responsible for enforcing
the Law will not move against a free public archive which maintains
oldies so long as it makes a good faith effort to remove material when
this is requested by a copyright owner.


....



> >     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.
>

     Were we to operate under the rules you propose, there would be _no_
Apple II software archives, either public or member-only. Fortunately,
copyright law is designed and enforced by those with a firmer grasp upon
reality.


 
> >     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.



> 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.
>

     You would demolish access to most Apple II/IIgs software and have
us depend upon those who happen to have originals to sell. This, alone,
eliminates access to most old commercial software. Close the archives?
Really, Deven, nothing could be more damaging to Apple II computing.




Rubywand