Re: Asimov performs a valuable service; so why fight over it

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

>Supertimer writes ...
>> 
>> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know about that...if "speculators" mean retailers, I would think
>> they are under some sort of legal constraint.  If some music is out
>> of print, but Tower records is harmed by piracy of that title, then they
>> can request that the law be enforced as I understand it.  Copyright
>> law is meant not only to protect copyright holders, but also retailers.
>>
>
>    Certainly, there have been law enforcement raids upon pirate
>producers of video tapes and CD's. One important distinction between
>such situations and Asimov is that Asimov is not selling anything. The
>reason this is important is that selling something for a profit
>demonstrates that is has real market value. Practically everyone agrees
>that the wares maintained on Asimov have so little market value that the
>copyright holders do not try to sell them.

All I can say is, Joe Kohn, Alltech, Sun Remarketing, and others have
been selling them.

>     Retailers of current CD's, tapes, etc. are not viewed as
>"speculators" because publishers, consumers, and legal authorities all
>agree that their wares have real, reasonably well established, market
>value.

Ah...but some of those CDs and tapes are out of publication...

>     Someone who buys 50 boxes of old software stock from someone who,
>earlier, bought the remaining stock of a distressed distributor knows
>very well that some risk is involved. After all, the stuff has been
>around for years and remained unsold.

But if they still can be sold, the stock has value right?

>     The speculator knows that lots of users already own the software
>and that users do trade software with friends. He/she also knows that
>copyright holders, consumers, and legal authorities are in general
>agreement that the software has had its fair shot at making a profit.

Says who?

>     All of the above factors are part of the software speculator's
>Reality. You 'know the score' and buy the 50 boxes of stuff anyway.
>
>    The buyer is speculating that he/she can make a profit. For
>example, the very fact that the software is old could, as in the case of
>Apple II Ultima, enhance its value. You may 'hit it big'; but, you can
>lose big, too. No one owes you a thing; but, then, no one has a right to
>bitch when you become a millionaire, either.

Let's say a legitamate videotape store has fifty boxes full of old tapes
that Paramount no longer makes.  If the store owner reports to the
police that a rival store across the street is giving away copies of the
title (just bring your own videotape...you can use our VCR)...do the
police have a right under the law to respond?

>     The opportunity to have the original diskettes, documentation, etc.
>in the original box is a major selling point, indeed, The major selling
>point in favor of anyone selling old software.

True.

>     Were sellers to have, say, a folder on Asimov where their originals
>are advertised, they might do a very good business with users who like a
>game and want to own and play the 'real thing'. This would be especially
>true of major adventures, but, could also apply to owning the original
>Super Bunny complete with the "Origins of Super Bunny" comic book,
>getting the real Elite complete with the "Dark Wheel" novella, etc..

That's a good point.

>     Software sellers, Apple II users, Asimov, and copyright holders who
>permit their wares to be maintained on Asimov could all benefit from a
>cooperative arrangement such as the above.  

Perhaps...         
 
>> It all depends on how valuable the product is.  In Joe Kohn's Atarisoft
>> case, I think it is valuable enough to be a real concern.  Atarisoft
>> sold the stock to Big Red Computer Club which sold the stock to
>> Shareware Solutions II.  We are not talking about just a few copies
>> here....
>> 
>>>  It may be that, if approached sanely and politely, Asimov managers
>>>can be persuaded to promote the efforts of old wares sellers.

Who is the keeper of Asimov?  Just curious...
If we all know how to contact him, maybe we can work something out.

>> 
>> I am all for sane discussion, as this is turning out to be...
>>
>
>     Fine; and, as you say, the discussion has been generally polite and
>there appears to be a genuine wish to reach a fair resolution.

Certainly better than flamefest...
 
>> >    No doubt, you will be surprised to learn that, via calm, polite
>> >email, my efforts have been directed toward suggesting a policy of
>> >protecting software sellers of old wares-- sellers who, in fact, truly
>> >make the old wares available.
>> 
>> That will go a long way to making the Asimov argument work.  If
>> retailers can be protected, that makes the argument more legit.
>>
>
>    Yes; however, neither of us runs Asimov or is trying to sell piles
>of original oldies. It is up to Asimov to decide whether or not to try
>including a space for old wares seller advertisements or to suggest
>other arrangements.

Now this is where I disagree.  If the software is still being sold and
thus has commercial value, Asimov is breaking the law even if it is
not profiting.  Here's why --

Some years ago, an MIT student made wares available on his
school account.  He was arrested and taken to court.  The court
ruled that since he did not profit, he was not pirating...so far, so
good...

BUT...recently, President Clinton signed into law a bill that makes
having copies of a software available for public download a crime
for the system operator.  If the value of the software exceeds a
certain amount...$100 I think...then the site can be prosecuted.

Under the new definition, the making available of Atarisoft titles
and AppleWorks is piracy.  The other wares may not be...

>     As to possibly delisting wares made available by a seller, it is
>quite a lot to ask. Asimov is 'in the business' of maintaining old out
>of print wares. That is the job of an archive. Perhaps, delisting an
>item would turn out to harm sales should some kind of on-site seller
>advertising arrangement be made.

Now even I think that's a round-about argument.  If the reseller is
complaining, obviously he thinks Asimov hosting of software is
harming sales of his product...

>     Were Asimov to agree to delist an item there would have to be a
>corresponding agreement from the seller to, in fact, make the item
>available. "Available" means the seller would need to advertise the item
>at a price which would sell. After the item is sold out or some
>reasonable period of time, the disk image version could, again, become
>available for downloading.

True; but we know that we can in fact order Atarisoft titles and AW3.0.

>     Again, if some accommodation is to be reached between old wares
>sellers and Asimov, it is the parties involved who must work things out.

I am just talking hypothetically...if the police were to be notified, the
Atarisoft and AppleWorks titles could in fact be violating the President's
new Internet piracy law...

>> 
>> However, in order for the Asimov argument to work, RETAILERS
>> COMPLAINTS MUST ALSO BE RESPECTED.
>
>     Why? If an old wares seller attacks the Asimov archive and insults
>its managers, what makes you suppose that Asimov will respect his/her
>complaints? Who is it that you imagine will make Asimov respect any
>software speculator's complaints?

How about the law?  I might be persuaded to agree that the majority
of products on Asimov is not piracy, but some apparently are.

>     One of the realities of the current situation is that Asimov is
>vastly more important to most Apple II users than all of the current old
>software sellers combined. Lots of users are willing to complain about
>this or that action by Asimov; but, very few would support attemps to
>close such a valuable archive. Most II users like Asimov.

It don't know about that...it is more like most users don't give a damn
about Asimov one way or another!

>     Asimov performs a service which benefits copyright holders and
>users. Whether or not they know or wish to admit it, Asimov also
>benefits software sellers by helping to maintain interest in II
>computing. Even old wares sellers should be grateful: How much would
>their Apple II Ultima, Questron, Super Bunny, etc. Originals be worth if
>no one were playing the games?

I don't agree with this argument.  Once downloaded, few buy.  On the
other hand, if they were not available for download, some old enthusiast
might buy the real thing.
      
>> If wares available
>> on Asimov harms ANYONE in the economic sense, then by the
>> very definition, it is piracy.
>>
>
>     Since when? Retailers, speculators, investors, buyers and sellers
>of every kind get kicked around every day in the normal course of
>capitalistic competition. Asimov does not owe you, me, old software
>speculators, or anyone else a thing. As long as the site does not
>maintain wares against the wishes of copyright holders, any charge of
>"piracy" is not only bogus but decidedly counter-productive.

But we are not laissez-faire capitalist of the 1890s!  We have laws.
Even the most powerful products of capitalism (Microsoft) is not
immune to the law.  Otherwise, what is capitalism's end...a bunch
of monopolies (as occured in the late 1890s before Theodore
Roosevelt busted them)...

>> One more thing that would make Asimov more acceptable is if
>> they accept files in .shk format.  If Asimov really wants to be a
>> real service to real A2 users as well as emulators, they should
>> support this format too...
> ....
>
>     Well, I guess you know you just blew about 50 rating points with
>your software speculator fans. Of course, you have a point. Everyone
>knows Asimov is as much or more an Apple II old wares archive as it is
>an "emulator site". Probably, Asimov prefers the zipped disk image
>format because it is accessible via several platforms. Besides, quite a
>few old wares are already maintained in plain zip or shk "file format"
>form.

Although it seems like I am on their side, I am not.  I say, let Asimov
keep the wares that are truly abandoned.  My disagreement is with
Asimov's treatment of resellers.  If resellers are selling, the product
still has value and Asimov is hurting that value.  They are also
breaking the law because those 50 boxes filled with Atarisoft disks
are worth more than $100.  Stop ignoring resellers and Asimov will
become legit.

As for my speculator fans, you want to bet Nathan is not going to
flame me in the next 10 followups because I agree with most of
what you said (EXCEPT the reseller bit)?