Re: Asimov helps users and battles piracy!

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Jeff Blakeney writes ...
> 
> 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.
>

     If it bothers you that much, go ahead and contact them. Most
likely, you will discover that you haved followed a well-worn path of
complainers and that whoever answers your call will try, politely, to
end the conversation as quickly as possible.


 
> 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.
 ....

     You have misinterpreted what has been suggested to you.


> 
> >     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. 
 ....

     The basic thrust of copyright law is to arm the copyright owner
with multiple, real, unambiguous means for defending his/her product. It
works. If a major software producer objected to having its old out of
print Apple II wares maintained on Asimov, it would inform Asimov and
Asimov would delist the product. (If Asimov were to refuse, the owner
could close down Asimov in a few days.)

     The best evidence that copyright holders do not object to having
their old out of print Apple II wares maintained on Asimov and do not
support accusations of "piracy" is that Asimov continues to exist.



> 
> >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.
>

     This is about the time our resident Swiss Cheese would accuse you
lowering yourself to personal flaming. It is understood that this is not
your intention.

    "Misleading people ..."? All of our cards are 'on the table' are
they not?

     We know the intent of copyright law, do we not? We know that Asimov
exists and that those who seek to destroy any Apple II institution they
can not control have exerted every effort to destroy Asimov, do we not?
We know that, should those with the genuine force of Law on their side
wish to implement the Law according to its intent and Asimov refuse to
delist a product, then, closing Asimov would be easy, do we not?

     Who is being "mislead"? Are those who avail themselves of Asimov's
free service and enjoy the games and appreciate the nice gesture of
software copyright owners being mislead?

     Are the copyright owners who like the idea of users enjoying their
old out of print wares being mislead? Are the marketing execs who cash
in on the Apple II gaming culture being duped?  Are the programmers who
cash in on the free publicity afforded by having their wares available
from Asimov just simpletons?

     Who _really_ is being mislead?
     
 
> Or maybe it is just the fact that no one seems to care that they are
> breaking the law.
>

     You may wish to consider the possibility that the only Law being
violated here is the one which exacts punishment for slanderous charges
of "piracy" where no piracy exists.



Rubywand