Re: Asimov is a _PIRATE_ site. Face the Facts

[Tom Zuchowski <cd003508@interramp.com>]

rder@pro-palmtree.cts.com (Richard Der) wrote:

>It has been expressed that the maintainers of Asimov think they are
>doing something useful by preserving dead software. I still believe
>that if their intentions are good, they should ask for permission.
>The point was raised that many publishers would just respond
>automatically with "no". Think of the benefits, though. Even if
>Asimov lost half of its "hoard," the other half would be legitimized.
> 
> 
>To be able to save out of print software that will otherwise languish
>and disappear is an good thing. The way Asimov tries to do this
>(pirating) is bad. They should try to contact the copyright holders.

Well...let me give you a little history on Genie-A2's "Lost Classics" 
project, which has been doing exactly that for several years now.

In many cases, the person contacted at the publisher says that they do not 
now, nor have they ever, published any software for the Apple II.  In 
those cases where they could be convinced that, yes, they DID publish such 
titles at one time, in almost every case they have no records or in other 
ways have no idea who presently holds the copyright.  In the majority of 
those cases where both the publisher and the author could be contacted, 
neither had any idea who held the copyright, and neither would commit 
themselves to granting permission for copyright release because they 
didn't know if they had the authority.

In other words, we are totally screwed in the case of about 98% of all the 
out-of-print Apple II titles floating around.

I personally don't have a problem with Asimov carrying such titles.  It's 
a pretty safe bet that no one will come after them, when nobody will admit 
to holding the copyright in the first place.

Where I =DO= have a problem with Asimov is where it has current software 
titles such as ProSel.  That is blatant pirating and IMHO should probably 
be prosecuted.

TomZ