Re: Asimov helps users and battles piracy!

[CUTjefbla@bconnex.net (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 03:58:28 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
wrote:

Large portions of the previous post have been snipped to conserve
bandwith.

>     Well, then, present your case. If you can show that maintaining old
>out of print wares-- wares the owners do not object to having
>maintained-- on an Apple II site is "piracy", those who have backed
>Asimov are likely to change their positions.

Where is your proof that the owners of the copyrights to the stuff
that is on asimov are _not_ objecting to it being maintained there?
As far as I know, no one has bothered to contact the owners of these
copyrights to see if they mind.

Then, near the end of your post, you said this:

>     Asimov is not exactly a secret web site. Any Apple II old software
>copyright owner need only peruse Csa2 to quickly locate the old wares
>archive. Besides, you have, no doubt, already sought to notify everyone
>you can that their oldie wares are maintained there. Yet, Asimov
>remains. My guess is that the copyright holders told you to 'take a
>hike'.

This proves to me that you haven't bothered contacting the authors
yourself and are just guessing at what they might say.  It is,
therefore, your "opinion" that the copyright holders don't mind their
stuff being on asimov.  You have no proof that they don't mind.

>     Very well ... As you may recall, threads discussing and examining
>the W3D bug business in detail unearthed information which only served
>to embarrass you, the developers, and those who trusted you.

If you ask me, you are the one who should be embarrassed but I'm not
getting into that argument again.

>     Again, you merely claim that Asimov is an "illegal" site. Your
>statements of opinion do not constitute a logical argument.
...
>     Remember, I am merely the humble Keeper of the Apple II
>comp.sys.apple2 Frequently Aske Questions on Ground, not the police.
>There is no evidence that the copyright holders object. There is no
>evidence that legal authorities object.

It is not his opinion, it is a fact.  The law states that it is
illegal to makes copies of copyrighted material.  This has nothing to
do with whether the copyright owner or legal authorities object or not
or whether anyone gets charged or not.  The law says it is illegal and
you are bound by that law.  If you break that law then you can be
brought to justice.

Whether you get brought to justice or not is another thing all
together.  You are still breaking the law.  You might be getting away
with it for now but it could catch up to you in the future.

>What is your problem?

Maybe he's upset with the fact that you are misleading people into
thinking they are not breaking any laws when, in fact, they are.

Or maybe it is just the fact that no one seems to care that they are
breaking the law.

=== I've had enough SPAM.  Cut the obvious from my address to email me. ===