Re: Abandonware Petition

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

penman wrote:

>Mitch--I've seen your name listed as helping with The Lost Classics
>Project--so I just wanted to say thank you for helping all of us
>get software legally released.  The plain fact seems to be that a
>lot of the folk who want to do this petition or an "archive" a la
>Tom's post simply want to take the easy way out--and yes, I'll use
>the word "piracy" again.  True, there's going to be some software
>we'll never get a chance to share (I'd love to be able to legally
>see C2Plus out there, but....) but there's a lot more out there that
>we COULD.  The simple fact remains that if all the effort that was
>made rationalizing piracy was put into a concerted effort to get
>said software released, we'd have a lot more out there.  Efforts
>made by people like you, Willie, Howard and Gareth (the only names
>I've seen publically associated with software release--some of us
>work behind the scenes : ) ) go a long way, but so few people can't
>do it alone--and they do have their own lives to live.  :)  I suggest
>that people contact Willie and Howard since they head up the two
>major projects, and volunteer to help.  We might get some good stuff
>for us all to use, a lot sooner!

To begin, I appreciate the reasonable tone of your reply, penman, and
would like to maintain it.

While I agree that more people emailing publishers and authors
would undoubtably result in getting more software "free" sooner,
I respectfully disagree on two points.

1) There is no great effort being expended in some other direction.
It's pretty easy to post comments from time to time, and does not
involve any significant committment of time or energy.  So redirecting
"all the effort that was made rationalizing piracy" would not add more
than one more person spending a few hours a week to the mix.
(But if all the _emotional_ energy--on BOTH sides--could be captured
and redirected, we could heat 1000 houses this winter!  ;-)

2) Given the expressed legal issues with included libraries, etc., and
the attendant costs in clearing _any_ title for freeware status, it is very
unlikely that much software whose rights are held by publishing houses
will ever be released from copyright or made freeware.  In fact, if the
track record so far is at all representative, it would suggest that no
more than 10% of ALL the software for the Apple II could EVER be
released, independent of the desires of its authors or publishers.

As Symantec and other publishers have (unofficially) said, the most
practical approach is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, in which the
software is allowed to be made generally available as long as the
rights holder is not publicly taken to task for not preventing this.
If someone makes a big deal out of it, then the rights holder may
have to posture publicly about piracy just to display "due diligence"
with respect to their "assets".

Is this the way I would like it to be?  No.  I would much prefer a
more rational term for software copyrights which would protect
real assets while releasing memorabilia to the ages.  But given
the legal/political environment, this seems the most pragmatic
way to do the most good with the least harm.

Much of what has been written here (and elsewhere) on this topic
focusses narrowly on strict legal interpretations, when the actual
question is whether any rights holder with any real standing in the
matter really cares what happens.  If copyright law is violated but
the rights holder does not care, then it makes about as much
difference as the proverbial tree falling in the wilderness (both to
the rights holder and to the US government).  [Note to the reader:
If you find yourself turning red at this statement, then you are in
danger of being an "absolutist", and must have a hard time getting
along in the world today--my sincere sympathies.]

OTOH, if the rights holder _does_ care, then the issue is _not_
moot, and we should all work to preserve the holder's rights intact.

We, as adults, constantly make judgments in our lives about what
is the "right" course of action, using moral and ethical principles
that, beneath all the noise, we actually have substantial agreement
on.  For example, most of us would not do something which would
cause actual (not necessarily theoretical) economic harm to someone.

The fundamentally ethical behavior of the vast majority is the kingpin
of our tax system, and it is not too much to rely upon it in protecting
the rights of copyright holders.  Each person comes to some
understanding with their conscience and behaves accordingly.
Surely, some harm is done, but to my mind it is much less than
the harm of preventing all copying in the name of preventing
abusive copying.

-michael

 Email:  mjmahon@aol.com
 Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/