Re: OMG!

["Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not>]

"J.Q.P." <jqp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
3AEBD50B.BF1808D@hotmail.com">news:3AEBD50B.BF1808D@hotmail.com...

> Phooey.   The Apple II platform is as able to sustain as much
> development as any other ground-zero platform -- such as a non-Palm/
> WinCE PDA, or a non-Sony/Nintendo/Sega/Xbox off-brand console
> game (as, for example, the Indrema would have been).   Most people
> dont care what's in the box, only what it can do for them.
>
> If you can come up with something new and compelling, people
> will buy it.
>
> The II is only in it's current state because of hardware stagnation,
> and (if someone thought it was worth the risk) that is easily remedied.

<snip>

> Not at all agreed.  The market will bear what it can bear.  If they're
> getting enough out of it to make it worth their while, more power to
> them
>
> I use Linux exclusively on my PC -- I believe in and respect the FSF
> as an organization and the GPL licence, but if someone wants to be
> paid for their work -- I'll respect that too.    If they think they
> can make some pocket change out of it, more power to 'em.
>
> I dont presently own a GS, but if I did, I'd pay for Spectrum, or
> pay shareware fees for Marinetti  (even though it's a good thing
> that _THAT_ bit of software is free and widely propagated), or Arachnid.
>
> Piracy is never justifiable.  If a company like Broderbund or Origin
> or EA had objected to their programs being put on a FTP site, they
> would have had legal recourse.  Copyrights dont expire becuase a
> computer system falls from popularity.
>
> Who decides that the market is dead?   I dont know what kind of
> volume Allelec or SHH is getting, but apparently they dont agree with
> you.
>
> At this point, a few authors are (apparently) getting enough
> shareware fees for their programs that they continue to make new
> releases...then the market isnt dead.  Pirating their programs
> only discourages them from further development.
>
> The GPL is a great and wonderful thing, but you cant force that
> on people.  You certainly cant "assume" public-licence/public
> domain status for a program just becuase you think the market is
> dead...and you want something to run on your emulator.
>
> "I think the market's dead, so it's okay to steal" is not morally
> or legally defensible.

I did not say that at all. I pointed out that making a commercial venture
out of selling software for a system that hasn't been sold as new for 8
years might be at best considered risky.

I may have been a bit unclear about some things.

1) I am not telling anyone currently engaged in successfully selling
software for the Apple II series to stop trying to do so. I am saying that
continuing to do so and expecting the current situation to last indefinitely
might not be in your best interests as an entrepreneur.

2) Hardware sellers are a completely different story than software sellers.
A piece of hardware is not infinitely and instantly reproducible nor
transferrable over electronic media conduits. There are obvious costs per
piece that are involved. They are perfectly entitled to sell for whatever
the market will bear, though I am sure the limited market is a factor for
them too.

3) I am not using the GPL as an excuse to do anything nor forcing it down
anyone's throat. I am giving it as an example of one of the factors involved
in reducing the potential revenue stream available to a tentative software
vendor.

4) I do not and will not advocate the piracy of software that is currently
available for sale. I do not advocate piracy of any software *not* currently
available for sale whose copyright holder has expressed continued
proprietary and fiduciary interest in said software.

5) I *AM* saying, and will say until I am blue in the face, that taking an
absolutist position -- with SOLE regard to the issue of out-of-print
software where the copyright holder cannot be determined, found, or
contacted -- is untenably rigid.

6) I am also saying that this absolutist position is difficult to sustain,
as it defends a provision of a law that (while the law itself has laudable
goals) is difficult to reconcile with current rates of development in
technology, and that demonstrably acts against the public interest in its
attempt to uphold it.

7) I am saying that as a service to historians and users, software of the
type described in point #5 be made publicly available until and unless the
copyright holder expresses continued proprietary and fiduciary interest in
the work.

8) I am saying that operators of sites that make these titles available
*SHOULD* take the time to seek out the copyright holders and secure legal
distribution rights, but that until that contact is made, the software
should continue to be made available, as it continues to have a value to the
community until and unless it shown that the copyright holder establishes
that it places a greater value on maintaining its rights under intellectual
property law.

Are we done now?

No, of course not. The absolutists will have to argue with me. Blah blah
blah agree law should be changed blah blah blah is what it is now blah blah
blah must obey blah blah blah must obey blah blah blah must obey.

Did you ever drive 36mph in a 35mph zone? Do you believe all speed limits
are always reasonable for the roads they apply to? Do you have utter faith
in authority, or do you occasionally simply drive at a speed you know to be
safe, even if that speed is in excess of the posted speed limit?

"Must obey" doesn't wash. Am I advocating something like anarchy? No. But I
would mention that the copyright laws written since 1978 have been greatly
influenced by media publishing company conributions to Congress. I would
also mention that media publishing companies do not actually create content;
they merely broker it, and it is in their financial interest to maintain
exclusive access to it for as long as possible. I would further point out
that in recent Congressional hearings about Napster, artists have come
forward and said that their interests and the publishers' interests do not
always coincide (and in fact do so only rarely).

So I would posit that slavish obedience to laws designed only to line the
pockets of publishers is not in the public interest, only the publishers',
and therefore not necessarily your interest as an individual citizen. Note
that I said "slavish obedience," not "obedience." "Slavish" is meant as a
delimiter and qualifier -- obedience to the law, insofar as disobedience
would cause demonstrable harm to authors' interests, is a good thing. Blind,
unquestioning, unthinking obedience is not a good thing. I'm sure someone
could come up with examples of situations in which blindly following laws,
rules, and orders turned out to have negative consequences.