Re: New Apple II SuperSite Online

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

"Rubywand" <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote in message
39EDA6D9.F64FB4A9@swbell.net">news:39EDA6D9.F64FB4A9@swbell.net...

>      Free distribution of old commercial software with no real market
value
> violates no law. Since the distribution benefits users as well as rights
owners,
> the truly "caring" thing to do is to continue the distribution.

Ruby, that's a very flat statement. And, technically, wrong. Violation of a
copyright, defined as "reproduction of a work in whole, or in parts not
falling under 'fair use,' without the express written consent of the
author," is a federal violation.

Whether or not the law as it exists presents a benefit to society is
extremely doubtful.

This is why many people choose to violate the law as a matter of civil
disobedience. Read Thoreau. It gives the abandonware issue a very noble
context. But IMHO, for a specific case of a particular individual item of
software to qualify, as a matter of freedom of information, and passive
resistance to archaic and poorly implemented laws, it needs to meet some
very specific conditions.

1) The software must be unavailable from any authorized distributor. No
online, offline, storefront, mail order, or one guy with an old but still
valid distribution license operating out of his basement can still offer the
item.

2) The copyright holder must be either unreachable or unresponsive.

3) The software must be at least ten years old.

4) If separate from the copyright holder, the author or authors of the
software must agree to its free distribution. If the author or authors
cannot be contacted, this provision can be waived.

Now, technically speaking, this is still a violation of federal law.
However, it is a violation which does two things. First, it is a modus
operandi that is much less likely to result in actual criminal or civil
action. Second, it is a course of action which has specific criteria
designed to minimize, if not eliminate, any possible damage to the copyright
holder, and thus could quite possibly be used as a legal defense. The
important thing about a legal defense is that it must be based on specifics.
Of course, that would actually require that prosecution be undertaken, or
that civil action be brought, which, given that the plan is specifically
designed to minimize the chance of that, seems unlikely.

But, I'm sure we could convince some of our friendly Vogon neighbors to
undertake the necessary steps. They don't mind spending months or even years
in court over this matter; after all, it's the principle and not the
practicality that matters. Quantum_Cat, if a test case could be devised,
would you be willing to come out of the black box Schrodinger put you in,
collapse the quantum function, and utilize your skills in writing diatribes
as a witness for the plaintiff or prosecution? Or even act as amicus curiae
and be the plaintiff, or chief complainant to the Attorney General yourself?