Re: Where is the beef???

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

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:

>>

> >     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.

<<

     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.

     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.



 
> 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.

     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.

     Fortunately, Asimov is an open public archive. Someone detected the
error and it was corrected.



 
> 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.



Rubywand