[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Moderation
"Rubywand" <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote in message
397FC197.29BC0232@swbell.net">news:397FC197.29BC0232@swbell.net...
> Michael Murray writes ...
> >
> ....
>
> > I'd like to note that newsgroup moderation *does* work. Look at
> > comp.lang.c.moderated if you want to see an example of it in action.
>
> Another narrow-focus group. Csa2 covers all aspects of Apple II
> computing. This includes whatever issues users wish to debate.
The number of topics is irrelevant. And this analogy is off-base. One
could, by this logic, define csa2 as narrow-focus for including only
information about Apple II's! Comp.lang.c.moderated covers only the C
language, but that breaks down into talks about pointers, recursion,
graphics manipulation, compression algorithms, file structures, etc., just
as csa2 includes talks about Imagewriters, ProDOS, and SCSI cards.
> > don't understand why this proposal is being compared to the Delphi
forum.
> > Usenet isn't Delphi.
>
> True, however, a couple of old A2 forums on Delphi are good examples
of
> what happens when moderation runs amok-- i.e. you get a dead zone.
All the more reason to elect a sensible moderator.
> > The idea behind moderation isn't to create a schism within a community.
> > It's to prevent it from happening! The schism in csa2 seems to already
> > have been created,
>
> When nearly all but a handful of users agree that old software should
be
> openly and freely available, one hardly has a "schism".
The number of users on each side is indeterminate, though I think most of us
don't really care. There are currently a number of responses to the "straw
vote" thread, most of whom have been silent about their position on piracy.
Neither the Turlettes nor the Vogons can definitively claim a majority
following.
> What you have is a collapsing clique of self-proclaimed "elite
users".
> It was their choice to invent phony "law", call users "pirates", and
oppose
> the will of the vast majority on an issue critical to the continued growth
of
> II computing.
As noted above, no clear majority can be claimed, though one group may be
more vocal than another.
There's a lot wrong in the above quoted paragraph, so let's all go back to
school for a while. Take a deep breath, everyone.
Take a second to define "growth". There's a definition handy at
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=growth, which I won't quote
directly, as the site bears an explicit content copyright notice and it
would be rather hypocritical of me to speak out against piracy and blatantly
do so in the same post. However, I will paraphrase the second and third
definitions.
growth - n.
2. Evolving from a simpler to a more complex form.
3. An increase, as in numbers.
It looks as if the second definition is the one we're after.
How is the use of ancient software "critical to the continued growth of II
computing"? Marinetti and gsAIM represent growth. The Orca compilers are
unquestionably essential to growth, since they're the mainstay of new Apple
II software development. A 15-year-old copy of PacMan and a pirated copy of
AppleWorks (with all due respect to that venerable program) don't help the
community grow. Those works are stagnant. They do not, and will not,
change. GS/OS, for example, would be a great target platform for a
small-scale MS Excel clone. *That* would be *real* growth.
It could be argued, by the third definition, that making old software freely
available would increase the number of Apple II users, as more applications
would be easily accessible. I disagree completely. Absolutely no one in
the last 10 years has stood in Circuit City and said to themselves, "Gee, I
wish I could keep on with my Apple II, but I can't find a copy of VisiCalc
anymore, so I guess I'll have to break down and get that Pentium with
Microsoft Office on it." We use the Apple II's as pieces of nostalgia or
history. Or maybe it was the best someone could afford when they had $30
and just really wanted to buy their first computer. But most of us use them
because it's a strange kind of love. And real love can never be bought.
Not even with all the pirated software on Earth.
And you *are* pirates. The law actually has this to say on the subject of
software piracy:
U.S. Code : Title 17, Section 506, Paragraph A:
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright
willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more
copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which
have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be
punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United
States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of
reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself,
shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
So, as no Apple II abandonware can possibly be said to have any retail value
anymore, criminal prosecution for its distribution is impossible.
However, when a writing, such as software, is copyrighted, the owner
receives the *exclusive* right to reproduce, distribute, display, perform,
or license the work.
U.S. Code : Title 17, Section 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under
this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted
work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other
audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or
sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion
picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted
work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted
work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Please note the word "exclusive" in section 106! Thus, while the copyright
for any Apple II software is effective, it *is* illegal to reproduce the
copyrighted work, though the act of doing so can no longer be prosecuted.
Also, note that the copyrights for *any* Apple II software created on or
after January 1, 1978 *are still in effect*.
U.S. Code : Title 17, Section 302:
-HEAD-
Sec. 302. Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January
1, 1978
-STATUTE-
(a) In General. - Copyright in a work created on or after January
1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the
following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of
the author and 70 years after the author's death.
(b) Joint Works. - In the case of a joint work prepared by two or
more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a
term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70
years after such last surviving author's death.
(c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire.
- In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work
made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from
the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the
year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end
of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an
anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a
registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of
section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the
copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection
(a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose
identity has been revealed. Any person having an interest in the
copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work may at any time
record, in records to be maintained by the Copyright Office for
that purpose, a statement identifying one or more authors of the
work; the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the
nature of that person's interest, the source of the information
recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in
form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights
shall prescribe by regulation.
(d) Records Relating to Death of Authors. - Any person having an
interest in a copyright may at any time record in the Copyright
Office a statement of the date of death of the author of the
copyrighted work, or a statement that the author is still living on
a particular date. The statement shall identify the person filing
it, the nature of that person's interest, and the source of the
information recorded, and shall comply in form and content with
requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by
regulation. The Register shall maintain current records of
information relating to the death of authors of copyrighted works,
based on such recorded statements and, to the extent the Register
considers practicable, on data contained in any of the records of
the Copyright Office or in other reference sources.
(e) Presumption as to Author's Death. - After a period of 95
years from the year of first publication of a work, or a period of
120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first,
any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report
that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing to
indicate that the author of the work is living, or died less than
70 years before, is entitled to the benefits of a presumption that
the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Reliance in good
faith upon this presumption shall be a complete defense to any
action for infringement under this title.
Did we all follow that, kids? The copyright is in effect *70 YEARS* after
the last surviving author's death!!
To summarize: the copyright laws were not "invented" by csa2's Vogons. They
exist. It just happens that the crime that *IS* being committed in pirating
20-year-old software is no longer prosecutable because of the software's
lack of any retail value. Anyone that wants to debate the criminality of
these acts can take it up with the U.S. Department of Justice.
> Despite this, these persons need a place to present and argue their
> position just as much as any other Apple II user. (For sure, thanks to
> heavy-handed moderation, they cannot have such debates on their own Delphi
> forums!) So, they come to Csa2.
Why debate it at all? The debate of piracy is a purely ethical one. I've
clearly shown that the act is illegal. Therefore, the only remaining topic
of debate in the Turlette/Vogon flame wars is the morality of using pirated
software. Morality and ethics are not part of a computer; those concepts
belong only to their users. And as this is comp.sys.apple2, not
comp.sys.apple2_users, I don't believe that these debates have any proper
place in this newsgroup. Alt.soc.ethics might welcome your company,
however.
> > with folks like David Empson as casualties of its flame wars.
>
> Actually, David's complaint was not about the debates; it was that,
for
> a few days, the debates were just about the only posted content. So he
went
> off to the programmer sub-group for a time. As already mentioned, that is
not
> unusual behavior.
A time? His actual words were, "I may come back again later, but as things
stand, it is just a waste of bandwidth." See the word "may" in there? That
doesn't quite compare to "for a time". And if csa2 is a proper forum for
these debates, why did he consider it to have become a waste of bandwidth?
When was it previously mentioned that this is not unusual behaviour?
Furthermore, why *should* it be common behaviour for people to exempt
themselves from a newsgroup because they feel it's become unproductive?
> > No just moderator would censor a thread of "Here's how to convert RS232
to
> > RS422" or "I need help with a GS/OS 5 driver", whether the post came
from a
> > so-called Turlette, Vogon, or User.
>
> Which leads to the observation that we do have a comp.sys.apple2.comm
> newsgroup virtually totally free of any issues discussions. Why do you
Really? I count 7 posts from yourself in that group since June 12. Five of
which are off-topic announcements for GS Worldview.
> suppose that hardly anyone would post the serial conversion question
there?
> It is because practically everyone is here, on the big bad old newsgroup
> which, among other things, debates issues.
It's true. Csa2.comm is a dead zone. But this is more of a catch-22 than
any kind of persuasive evidence. Group participation waned, leading more
and more posts into csa2 itself, which leads people not to post to csa2.comm
as no one posts there...
> > All I can see that csa2 would lose in
> > the conversion would be the 25-level deep threads about piracy and the
> > general flames.
>
> This completely misses the whole point of having an open newsgroup.
> Users ask and answer questions. They also discuss and debate what they
wish
> to (as you are doing now).
True. That is very much what I'm doing now. But I do this in hopes of
either killing the off-topic flame wars and restoring csa2 to discussions
only about the computers themselves (extremely improbable) or seeing
comp.sys.apple2.moderated come into being (possible), both of which I
consider to be very much on topic. Should the latter become a reality, I'll
be happy to no longer participate in csa2, and let this entire debate die
the sad death it deserves.
> >
> > Maybe the idea of a moderated csa2 is too Orwellian, too "1984" for some
> > users.
> ....
>
> Maybe. Mainly, it's just an idea that would gum things up and slow
them
> down. There is enough of this other places on the net.
Yes, it is rather a shame when useful information is obscured by
irrelevancies, isn't it?