Re: Asimov Site

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

Jeff Blakeney wrote in message <39ac1d1c.94088868@24.9.0.17>...
>The reason many of us continue to tell people that distributing old,
>commercial, Apple II software is illegal is because the system we have
>today is what we have to deal with.  If you were to be taken to trial
>for software piracy today, you would be tried under todays laws, not
>some futures laws that might be passed to protect something that has
>yet to be invented.  Until the current system is changed this is what
>we have to deal with.  When or if it is changed, then we will start to
>follow the new system but until it does we all have to abide but what
>we have right now.


    Hmm, you sound quite reasonable Jake. If I've somehow offended you
personally, then I apologize. However, our opinions still differ somewhat.
Of course I'm aware that if taken to trial today, I would be subject to
today's laws. This isn't a law forum, but of trying to turn it into one, I
suppose I'm at least as guilty as anyone else. Most of us are quite aware of
these laws, though, why do you suppose some are so quick to tell us yet
another time? Why do I get the feeling their in love with them so much? Is
it because if they weren't, they might wish to protect their own, that is
people who love the a2, and wish to experience software that is otherwise
impractical, if not impossible? I'm not asking anyone here to start some
copyright lobbyist organization, just a "hey, it does kinda stink" or even a
"yes it has flaws, but what system doesn't" would be good enough. They
identify with this issue so deeply, that to say the system has flaws is
often met with stinging insult, and rarely with any intelligent debate.

    I honestly _DO NOT UNDERSTAND_ how such a viewpoint of mine could be
seen as seen as piracy, or even piracy advocation. I am just as vehement
about punishing those who would endanger the livelyhood of those authors who
still write software for our platform. The undermining of efforts to support
the AppleII are bad enough, but to actually take money out of the pocket of
a working man just for the hell of it is unconscionable. Do I even
understand the history of this flamewar correctly? A few years ago, someone
starting pirating software that was still being sold, was realtively new, as
in only a month or two old? I'd never do anything like that, and I
discourage those who might do the same. But if some company has 20 year old
software, which they no longer sell, I would look the other way. It isn't
harming that company, it's harming the LAW. Big deal. When it harms the guys
that law was designed to protect, then, and only then should people have any
reason to bitch.

>By the way, you seem to have a real problem with people being able to
>own stuff or to be compensated for their time and effort.  I just
>can't understand how anyone could feel that way.  You have to be able
>to own stuff, otherwise, every day when you wake up, you won't even
>know if you'll have a car in your driveway to get around in.  People
>also need to be compensated for what they do, otherwise, they will
>stop doing anything.  It doesn't matter whether the compensation is
>money or just a thank you, they have to have some incentive to keep
>doing things.


    No, I don't have a problem with the concept of ownership, exactly, but I
do have thoughts on how this concept might be modified slightly. Wouldn't
even necessitate legislation, if you could trust 6 out of 10 humans to acts
a little less like monkeys. If you think of yourself as the caretaker of a
possession, rather than its slavemaster, that right there does enough to
satisfy me. This goes for most anything, from land to software. Caretakers
of historic properties often charge admission fees, this isn't bad. These
fees actually go toward keeping that castle, or park, or whatever in a
condition that makes people want to visit them. This is good, it's a shame
how many historical sites can't have such a system. On the software side of
things,  again this works. The person/company maintaining the software gets
compensated for it, but those unwilling to "keep the museum open to the
public" forfeit rights to it. It's not like that now, but it should be.
    Heck, if two 12 year olds sneak into the amusement park, and they are
caught, what, the police hold them til their parents pick them up? If two 19
yr olds do the same, they get a $250 fine? Compare to software...
inprisonment, $25,000 fines (higher than this?), forfeiture of all computer
equipment, etc. Even this isn't as bad as those losing connectivity, for any
other crime, they have to be convicted before being punished. Big Copyright
Money has basically conscripted ISPs and telecom companies into a giant
vigilante army that doesn't have to obey any of the rules that law
enforcement authorities do.
    Oh, and "Thank yous" are always nice if sincere, but they certainly need
the money you spoke of. We all need to eat, except possibly lawyers who are
rumored to feed off the souls of the damned. Trust me on this, if I thought
that 90% of the time, software authors were getting even half the take, it
wouldn't hurt near so bad. Don't let the others fool you though, all the "we
must have more powerful copyright laws" in congress is all about protecting
the fat wallets of those who never do anything we could consider useful.
They used to be able to claim that they 'distributed' books/software/movies
etc so efficiently that they'd grown satisified that the lame excuse would
work forever. I mean, what other ways were there to distribute these things?
Even someone like me who might see that this was a lame excuse, could hardly
offer an alternative. Then the internet showed up, and it showed that these
things didn't require much at all to distribute. And they've been scrambling
ever since. We don't need 100 year copyrights, and before the decade is out,
it will have grown to 500+. There is a backlash against software patents
building, and they'll be severely restricted or banned outright in less than
5 years. But it will be just enough, to bounce the other way, and let them
up copyright expiration. Twisted balance, huh?
    Despite what everyone thinks, I'm not some neo-hippy wannabe who thinks
we can all pick flowers on some commune, and just ignore it all. I want
improvements to goverment/economy/law, not their abolishment.

Thanks,
John