Re: Just bought an Apple II

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

sloopy malibu writes ...
> 
> what was probably closer to the truth was
> if you weren't making a profit off
> of it they 'overlooked' (users giving it to users) 
> because you needed it to run apples hardware and
> you already gave them the money for the machine and drives...
> 
 ....

     Pretty much. Whenever one discusses how to treat a copyrighted product,
a good guideline is money. If using the product makes money (or costs money
to the owner) then the owner will generally object and require that the
activity cease and/or insist upon payment.

     In the case of users exchanging software, it is clearly in Apple's
interests to not interfer. Being able to exchange software which includes DOS
3.3 makes owning an Apple II more attractive.

     Copyrights, use licenses ("to which you agree when you open this
package"), etc. all share a common feature which is often overlooked: that
is, they are difficult not to 'violate'. For example, it is a violation to
play many Apple II 8-bit games on a IIgs; and, it is a violation to modify
just about any piece of commercial software for use from hard disk or on some
other model of Apple II.

     As for using Apple II software on an emulator, you can (technically
legally) forget it:

First- There is nearly never a right to make a copy of any commercial
software (old or new) except for purposes of backing up an original. (You can
not use the backup except to restore a damaged original.)

Second- Standard use restrictions will forbid using the software except on
the machine for which it was released. PC's and Macs are not Apple II's.

     But, then, merely using an emulator violates rights restrictions. The
most obvious violation is ripping off Apple II, II+, IIe, ..., IIgs ROMs to
make the emulators work on PC's and Macs.

     In case there is any doubt, all of the above restrictions apply whether
or not one has purchased the software or computer. For instance, buying an
Apple IIgs does not give one the right to copy its ROM and use it in an
emulator.

     Regarding Apple II system software, it is no longer licensed. If you
contact Apple and ask whether anyone has a valid license to distribute Apple
II system software, the answer will not be a simple "Yes". Instead, you will
be told that Apple has not sent cancellation notices.

     So, as long as no one insists upon pursuing the matter, those with
licenses can act as though the licenses are valid. But, then, everyone else
has the same 'right' to distribute Apple II system software-- i.e. like a
"license holder", you can do so as long as Apple does not object.


     The point of the above observations should be clear: If one insists upon
being a stickler for nice, clear black & white "legality", then, one should
probably forget about being an Apple II or Apple II emu user. Most likely,
one will only end up calling other users "pirates" and, in the process, be
shown up as a hypocrit.

     On the other hand, anyone with a modicum of common sense will be able to
see that broad copyright restrictions and the maze of use restrictions are,
in a real sense, designed to be violated by the typical user. 

     A copyright hands the owner a simple, clear means of controlling what
happens to a product-- i.e. the product is private property. The owner is
free to overlook instances when liberties are taken or to insist that they
cease and, if necessary, call upon the Law to end such liberties. With very
few exceptions, that's it.

"No"= not okay to make copies, etc..

"Yes"= okay to make copies, etc..

Silence= use common sense and decide for yourself whether the owner would or
should object. (A good indicator is whether the owner benefits or loses.) 


     So, for example, it makes sense to use and enjoy emulators in the
confidence that Apple does not at all mind seeing its ROM code employed this
way. It costs Apple nothing and places the "Apple" name before PC users, some
of whom may decide to invest in an Apple Mac.

     But, should Sun or some other hardware maker seek to integrate Apple
II/IIgs ROM code into a machine, you can bet Apple would insist upon payment.

     Similarly, it is silly to call someone who downloads Ultima III from
Asimov or Emunation a "pirate". There is every reason to suppose that Origin
favors the availability of its old Apple II wares for free downloading-- it's
great advertising for the newer PC releases.

     However, should someone seek to market a "Best A2 Adventures for Your PC
Emu" CD which includes Ultima I-V, Origin might well insist upon an agreement
which awards it a share of the profits.


     Technically, at least potentially, all of the above involve copyright
and/or use violations. It is left to the rights owner to decide how to
respond. Since any violation which does damage or makes money from the
product is much more likely to be noticed, it is not nearly so difficult for
an owner to act appropriately as some claim.




Rubywand