Re: A2 Trade/Swap ... site ...

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Rubywand wrote:

>      What Jeff B never mentions is ...
>
> o- there is no "anti-piracy" or other law against uploading or downloading
>    the old software; agreeing to, ignoring, or halting any perceived
> violation
>    is up to the rights owner
>

That's a total distortion of the facts. No, there are no "anti-piracy" laws; there are
copyright laws, which, as someone in third grade could figure out, means if I own the
copy*right* only I have the *right* to make *copies* for distribution. Come on now! If
you want to make a case for violating copyrights then try to do that, but argue from
the laws that are on the books and what they do allow and do forbid. Furthermore, just
try reading the license agreements, by which the copyright owners allow you to own a
copy of their software. I don't know of any (other than share/freeware) which would
allow you to make a copy to distribute.

>
> o- rights owners benefit from having their oldies available for downloading

Prove it. You keep saying this, now prove that one single publishing house has had an
increase in sales from the violation of their copyrights on older software. Give us
the sales figures, give us the quotes from the sales or legal departments of EA,
Sierra, Broderbund, or others. If you can't then drop this phantom argument.

>
> o- of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of rights owners with software on these
>    sites, the number who have requested that a product be removed is probably
>    less than ten.

Prove it. And, while you're at it, prove that the other rights owners know that their
software is on there, and that they don't care.

>
>
> > "Vogons" are not so dumb as
> > to think that they will change the minds of Tom, Rudy, Ruby, et al,
>
>      Unfortunately for the vogon anti-archive wrecker types, the "et al"
> includes most of the Apple II users in the known universe. Pestering us,
> especially pestering us with bogus arguments, is definitely dumb.

That's a laugh. You have the most bogus arguments given on this NG. Bogus - a machine
for making counterfeit money (interesting!): not genuine: counterfeit, sham.
"Pestering us", by telling people who may not know better, that they are downloading
software that 1) by law may not be uploaded to those sites, 2) that they have no right
to download. What to you is "pestering" sounds to me like a community service.

>
> > or vice versa.
>
>      Since the people you are calling "vogons" do not have a coherent ethical
> or legal position-- like when has Jeff B ever slammed his vogon pal's Bernie
> site for promoting ROM code rip-offs?-- there is always a chance of change
> based upon pure self-interest.

1) I'm not calling them "vogons" - the word is in quotes, because I'm quoting you and
Tom and Rudy. 2) Jeff doesn't even "slam" you or Tom or Rudy. Why would he slam a
friend? The only consistent slammers here are those who slam Jeff everytime he warns
someone that certain sites have software that was illegally posted. As for the GS ROM,
Jeff has answered that question.

>
> > If you want this to be a more peaceful place, why not let Jeff make his
> > quiet announcement/warning, and then let it go?
>
>      Because it is wrong to tell new users that downloading ancient software
> is illegal or harmful and to try to make them feel like thieves.

It is not wrong to tell the truth. It is not wrong to tell them that software that is
only 5, 10, 15 years old is no longer protected by the laws of the United States, and
any nation that has copyright treaties with the US. "Ancient"? Ancient - "2. of or
relating to a remote period, to a time early in history, or to those living in such a
period or time; specif: of or relating to the historical period beginning with the
earliest known civilizations and extending to the fall of the western Roman Empire in
476 A.D."
A car isn't even an antique anymore unless it is 25 years old. A book is often
considered contemporary for decades. And most of the games and productivity software
for the Apple II still perform the functions for which they were created: entertaining
or doing useful work.

>
>      Because it is wrong to sabotage the only remaining real value of their
> properties left to rights owners

Who are you to say what the real value is to the copyright owners?

> -- i.e. promotion of current products (e.g.
> the Ultima series), promotion of programming skills (e.g. via game credits),
> some small measure of fame, and the enjoyment which comes in knowing that
> your work is still bringing pleasure to others.

Like the argument over Napster, this should be left up to the copyright owners. They
can allow their software to be distributed like this if they wish. Some have. But what
you are defending is violation of their right to choose what happens with their works,
with their rights.

>
>      Because it is irresponsible and dangerous to try to convince Apple II
> users that they are all "pirates".

While that is true, that is not what is happening. A total fabrication to cover what
is illegal.

> Should people like Jeff B ever succeed,
> the result will not be an end to downloading of old wares. It will be the
> creation of real pirate sites and the downloading of everything, including
> current commercial software.

False. Jeff and others frequently give the urls of sites that are not contaminated
with pirated works. Indeed, when people get the idea that it's ok to copy copyrighted
works, then the copying of commercial software (what little there is) will spread. If
you don't like those sites, or if they might not have the most recent versions of
freeware, then do the community a service and help get the most recent versions or
additional software on those sites, rather than supporting and encouraging sites that
have software on it that is copyrighted.

>
> > He doesn't dog people and nag them about copyright laws,
>
>      Yes, he does. Even worse, he (and you) nag people about breaking laws
> which do not even exist.

Oh, the copyright laws don't exist? What a fantasy world you live in. The nagging is
done by people like you with posts like yours.

>
> > he knows, as we all do, that people will violate
> > those laws if they wish,
>
>      We all know no such thing. The "law" you talk about is fantasy.

Been smoking some strange tobacco? The copyright laws have existed here since the
1780s.

>
>      All a copyright does is establish a property right. Taking liberties
> with a copyrighted property "violates" the copyright, not the law.

And if I steal your car, I have only violated your property rights, not the law. When
I was a store detective decades ago, and I arrested people for shoplifting, I had the
right to physically restrain them, because a store official is legally in the same
position as a home owner, and such may apprehend and restrain someone who has
attempted to violate their property rights until the police arrive and cite the
person. I even had to once go to court and give testimony. No, my store didn't sue the
person, they had violated property rights, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
prosecuted them for a violation of the law in the Court of Common Pleas. You seem to
have confused a "license" with a copyright.

> It is up
> to the rights owner to decide whether the violation is okay and ignore it or
> that it is not okay and request/insist that the violation cease.

Another distortion of the facts. If my car is stolen and I don't know it, I probably
won't report it, and a police officer who sees my stolen car probably won't try to do
anything about. However, if he or she sees the theft in progress, they might. And a
citizen of this Republic has a civic duty to warn off thieves.

>
> > and that though there are penalties,
>
>      There are no penalties for violating a copyright on property with
> virtually zero commercial value unless the copyright owner objects,

And if he or she should, then your back side is grass and will be truly mowed. Another
distortion by means of half truths.

> takes you
> to court, and somehow manages to demonstrate a loss due to your actions.
> Then, the penalty will be to pay some amount related to the loss.\

Never heard of the "pain and anguish" payments that juries award??

>
>      As observed earlier, virtually all owners benefit from the free
> availability of their old software to users.

I didn't see any such observation. I only saw a fantasy. No facts. No conclusions.
Just wishful thinking.

> So, you can forget about
> "penalties" for users.
>
>      On the other hand, someone who, with no legal standing, claims to act on
> behalf of owners, libels archives, and succeeds in eliminating free access to
> old software could be in real trouble. This self-appointed 'champion of
> owners rights' could be taken to court and sued for loss of promotional value
> of the property.

Name one single case of that happening. One. I predict silence on this, as on the
proof that copies of Apple II Ultima copying is promoting Windows Ultima sales.

>
>
> > it is unlikely, even if possible, that anyone will go
> > to jail or pay a fine for copying "Choplifter."
>
>      True; but, someone may soon be lynched for coming up with goofy
> examples.

Is that a threat? Lynching is a crime, and to even say that you threaten someone is
legally called "battery", once done across state lines it is a federal case, and even
worse, Bev might think that you are threatening to kill people.

>
> >
> > Really, in many ways, this situation is like one person tapping someone on the
> > shoulder who is about to jaywalk, and to inform them quietly that that is
> > against the law, and that there are penalties for it.
>  ....
>
>      Granted, aside from the fact that violating a copyright is not illegal,

Snore

>
> there are similarities. Anyone (except a policeman) who warns an adult that
> he/she is about to jaywalk qualifies as a genuine busybody.

A concerned citizen. Esp. if the person about to jaywalk is new to the US, perhaps
other nations don't have jaywalking laws, I'll ask my friends in Namibia and Zambia if
there are such in those lands. And someone who is new to the Apple II world might not
know that there is copyrighted software on certain sites. They might like a friendly
word of advice. Or not. That's up to them, not busybodies like you who jump in at
every chance to defend this reprehensible behavior.

>
>
> > If no one else jumped in, that would be the end of it.
>  ....
>
>      If the guys 'warning' everyone minded their own business and ceased
> gushing nonsense, there would be no problem in the first place.

I'll remember that if I ever see your car stolen or your house burglarized.

Roy