Re: Cnet Article on Abandonware

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

Nicely put!


"Bryan Villados" <news001@nospam_macgeek.org> wrote in message
news:100820002018076608%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.