Re: Just a thought ...

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Will Smith writes ...
> 
> On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 08:49:02 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
> wrote:
> 
> |>     You appear to be saying that you are prepared to ignore the
> |>standard restrictions on copying some old, out of print game. Fine. If
> |>the copyright owner objected, the game would not be available for
> |>downloading on any major Apple II archive.
> 
> can i offer another point of view?  what if the copyright author isn't
> AWARE these sites even EXIST?  what THEN?  should the copyright holder
> spend most of his/her free time (if there IS any) searching for
> violators within the known universe?
>

     For Apple II software copyright owners, the "known universe" need
go no further than Csa2. Should Sierra, Activision, SSI, Origin,
Interplay, ... wish to let everyone know that their old Apple II
software should be removed from all major A2 archive sites, a posting
here would pretty well get the job done. (Apple II may well be the only
major home user platform for which this is true.)

     The above underscores just how off-base are charges of "piracy"
against our major archives. Check out a few PC/Mac "warez" sites. Can
you imagine their response to, say, a "piracy" complaint posted on
comp.sys.mac.advocacy? Most likely, the complaint would be splashed
across the designated site's intro screen!

                  

 
> i would rather that the "proper order" be more of what Willie and
> company are doing for the Treasure Chest: secure permission FIRST,
> THEN post the program for everyone to download.  this way, everyone is
> happy.

     That "everyone is happy" is not a requirement; nor is it especially
desirable. "Everyone" includes a few nitwits who would, if they could,
destroy all access to old Apple II software.

     They can not, of course, succeed. The nitwits might be able to
replace sites which care about copyright owner requests with for-real
pirate sites which care not a flip. We would still have access to old
software; but, new commercial software development would be nearly wiped
out.

     Requiring specific permission to place each item on an archive is
unworkable. All major archives maintain copyrighted software. No major
archive tries to obtain specific permissions for each piece of software.

     If you want some idea of the enormous effort required to contact
and deal with copyright holders, ask Willie or Dr. Tom. For an
indication of what would be available, check Willie's list.



> we'd be able to download with a clean conscience, not having
> to worry if the Feds could confiscate our systems because we got a
> copy of a program that shouldn't have been made available in the FIRST
> place,

     It is best to restrict your arguments to this Reality. What "the
Feds" may do in Oz is not our concern.



> and we wouldn't have the ethical quandry that now exists for
> those poor souls that downloaded ProTERM before it was removed from
> Asimov: "hmmm...  i guess that means i shouldn't have this copy.
> should i delete it, buy it from an authorized dealer, or keep what i
> have and keep quiet?"....  PREFERABLY, the answer would be the first
> two (delete current, then buy it)....

     That is your decision. It may be worth noting that the PT31 version
which used to be on Asimov was not (the last time I checked) the most
recent version and that the ProTERM-A2 v3.1 manual which comes with the
'store bought' copy is _very_ nice to have.



> 
> |>     Indeed, there is every reason for a copyright owner which is
> |>currently producing PC games to _want_ the A2 oldie to be downloaded and
> |>played. It's an advertising bonanza for the copyright owner. Anyone who
> |>plays SpaceQuest/gs and likes it is much more likely to look for new
> |>Sierra games to play on his/her PC.
> 
> if they thought that way, then they wouldn't have any problem giving
> permission, huh?
>

     Very few non-freeware, non-shareware copyright owners are likely to
grant a specific permission. (I, probably, would not.)  Granting
permission in any verifiable form could be interpreted as a public
declaration that you feel your product has no market value. Most
commercial copyright owners appear to feel that anyone dumb enough to
ask for permission deserves to be told "no".



 
> |>     If anything, the copyright owners should be _paying_ sites like
> |>Asimov to foist their advertising upon downloaders.
> 
> i don't know about THAT...  it would depend on how successful the idea
> WENT.  if they were to initiate such a plan, then poll their customers
> after a year or so, then they would see if it was worth the effort...
>

     Don't worry; it is not likely to happen. Too many archive sites are
willing to maintain the software without charge. Asimov can not very
well sell commercial copyright owners a service which others are willing
to provide free. 


 
> |>     On balance, everyone involved wins; and, remember, the copyright
> |>owner is always free to insist that a product be delisted from an Apple
> |>II archive site. This should answer any questions about rightness or
> |>wrongness of downloading the oldie.
> 
> like i said before: the "default" should be NO POSTING until
> permission is granted otherwise.  i understand that it is sometimes
> impossible to GET permission, but that's life.
>

     Getting permission for every piece of software maintained is
fantasy. If you want to see "life", connect with a few major archives.



Rubywand