Re: Cnet Article on Abandonware

[Bryan Villados <news001@nospam_macgeek.org>]

For the most part, this thread is concentrating on Microsoft. If you
were to put it into perspective with that of the Apple II interest, I
think most of the arguing on c.s.a2 has to do with software made by
companies that no longer exist. Microsoft still exists, so they
probably will persue abandonware sites legally.

But if you were to look at companies like Sirius Software, Adventure
International, Muse Software, etc., the people(s) who inherits the
copyrights has the right to legally shut down illegal distribution of
their intellectual properties. And all abandonware people know this.

So what it comes down to is this: "I'll distribute abandonware until I
get caught, then I'll stop." There are no differences between
Microsoft, Symantec, Borland International, Sirius, etc. The
pro-abandonware people, however, look at it more in the perspective of
"low-risk" versus "high-risk" software. Meaning, I have a better chance
of getting away with distributing Castle Wolfenstein (Muse) than
distributing Microsoft's Applesoft BASIC Compiler.

So much of the software you see floating around the Apple II-related
abandonware sites are low-risk products. Again, the law is the law. All
intellectual properies are the same, whether they're supported by the
owners or not. It just comes down to what software products are less
likely to be enforced by their intellectual property owners. I think
the writer of the C-Net article missed the boat by not convering this
point.

I'm not for or against abandonware. I'm just trying to project the
philosophical side of this topic.