Re: Law- Asimov and A2-Delphi

[toddpw@ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:

>     However this may be, it has not prevented authors from demanding
>that sites delist a piece of Apple II software whenever they please. It
>has become accepted practice to comply with such demands/requests
>whatever the originally declared status of a piece of software.

Ah yes, but that does not change the status of the released software. If
authors intend to de-list their software, then it is their responsibility
to ensure that all copies are tracked down and exterminated. Copyright law
does not give them any help whatsoever. Success is by no means guaranteed.

If anything, they should be thankful that so many of the archive sites were
kind enough to respect their wishes, when they were under no legal obligation
to do so.

Your idea that open archive sites are magically better than "closed" pay sites
is an amusing re-hash of the Free Software Foundation open-source rationale.
If it were the case that pay sites regularly got in trouble for archiving
all-rights-reserved software without permission, they perhaps it would make
sense. It certainly does with respect to pirate BBS's that only allow WaReZ
access to those who have won the Sysop's trust.

But, if you bother to investigate, you will find that the pay services have
an excellent reputation for obeying distribution restrictions, as they must
-- it's one of their competitive advantages when they advertise exclusives.

Is it really so bizarre that quite a few people are willing to pay money so
that somebody else worries about all this crap? That's why the pay services
are here to stay.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu