Re: AppleWorks GS and reclassification

[CUTblakeney@home.com (Jeff Blakeney)]

I almost didn't reply to this message but leaving this without a
response is almost like agreeing with it.  :-/

On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:23:52 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
wrote:

>     First, what you need is the _current_ _owner's_ blessing. Locating the
>current owner of a piece of software is often very time consuming.

So what if it takes some time and effort to find the current owner?
That is the only legal option you have so if you want to see a title
reclassified for download you have to put in the effort to get that to
happen.

>     Second, in nearly all cases, there is no good reason for the current
>owner of a piece of software to ever agree to a change of status (e.g. to
>freeware which may be freely distributed or public domain).

I wouldn't say there is no good reason to reclassify their software.
You mention promotional benefits and if you truly believe that then
this is a good reason to reclassify titles.  Another good reason to
reclassify a piece of software is so they can make a little more money
from it by reclassifying it as shareware instead of freeware or public
domain.  There are other good reasons as well.

However, it is still up to the current owner what they want to do with
their software and we are legally bound to abide by that owner's
decision.  If that owner has said nothing since it was released
commercially twenty years ago then we still have to abide by that
twenty year old agreement regardless of whether we like it or not.

>     The current practice of 'unofficially' permitting public archives to
>make old products available for downloading maximizes promotional benefits,
>eliminates any need for product maintenance by the owner, and avoids giving
>away product rights.

How a copyright holder promotes themselves or their products is
totally up to them.  Giving someone's product away as a "promotional"
item without the copyright holder's permission is illegal regarless of
whether it helps the copyright holder or not.

This "archive" practice also doesn't eliminate the need for product
maintenance as you would be putting the product into more people's
hands and they would be wanting help with using the product and might
start bugging the author for an update.

As to the idea that doing this avoids giving away product rights, it
is simply ignoring the owners rights to the product.  This practice
devalues the product's rights by making it available illegally thereby
making products virtually worthless and therefore not worth keeping or
releasing.  This means that those products will most likely only ever
be available illegally.

>     The plain truth is that having someone contact you to request
>reclassification of an old commercial product is an annoyance.

This would be another good reason to reclassify a title.  If you are
annoyed by being asked about it then why not just reclassify it and
get people off your back?  However, if the owner still doesn't want to
reclassify it and also doesn't want to be annoyed by requests to
reclassify it, all he should have to do is make one public statement
that it won't be reclassified and the number of request will drop to
almost none.

Also, as I stated above, if the product is getting into more people's
hands the chances of the current owner being bothered by e-mail
questions and requests for updates will most likely increase which
could also be an annoyance for the current owner.  Making the archive
available illegally could be just as bad as not making it available.

>     You can, if you like. If you insist that owners go through the legal
>hassle of reclassification and give up some or all rights to every product
>you download, you will be in for a long wait. 

Funny, I've been seeing lots of stuff being reclassified lately.  It
sure doesn't seem to be very long between releases either.

>1. With very few exceptions, no one can put a product into the public domain
>except the owner of the product.

Well, you've got one right so far.

>2. As far as the operation of the major archives is concerned, the business
>about 'responding within some time frame' is fantasy.

I agree with this too.  The "archives" that are illegally distributing
software don't care about time frames because they never ask for
permission in the first place so aren't awaiting any sort of response.

>3. Offering some 10-20 year-old out of print 'commercial' game, etc. for
>download on a public archive does not damage ownership rights (_unless_ the
>owner has been contacted and agrees that the product can be placed there). It
>very definitely does not place the product in the public domain.

It most certainly does damage ownership rights.  If people can get the
product for free illegally then the owner of that product won't have
much of a chance to do anything with that product in the future.

I do agree with you that making the product available illegally does
not place the product in the public domain.

>4. Almost always, especially if you are talking about any company or
>individual currently engaged in software production, having an old product
>(like Ultima I-V, the AD&D adventures, etc.)  available for downloading is a
>pure plus. It's the cheapest, easiest way for old games with no commercial
>value to still attract buyers for current PC products.

Like I said above, how a company or individual wants to promote
themselves or their products is totally up to them.  They certainly
don't want or need other people giving away stuff they own to
"promote" them.

>5. If the owner decides that a product should not be available for
>downloading, it is only necessary to contact the archive to have it
>withdrawn. (However, once it becomes known that a company or individual has
>made such a request, it can be difficult for the owner to get the product
>back on the archives because, then, an official statement changing the status
>of the product is nearly unavoidable.)

For this point to work, the owner must know that the product is being
made available for downloading before they can contact the archive to
get it withdrawn.  If it is as difficult as you say it is to track
down the current owners of products, how likely do you think it is
that those same owners are constantly checking all the internet sites
to make sure their products aren't being illegally distributed?

Also, the current owner doesn't even need to ask for the product to be
removed.  They can simply inform the authorities that the site is
illegally distributing their product and let the authorities handle
it.

As to getting a product back on the archives, all it takes is for the
product to be reclassified so that it can be legally made available
from that site.

>     There is nearly never any doubt. 'It' is copyrighted. Virtually every
>piece of software on the net which is not PD, is copyrighted.

What's your point?  If it isn't expressly place in the public domain
then, yes, it is copyrighted.  However, some copyrighted products,
including all commercial products, have distribution restrictions
placed on them that says you can't make it available in any way, shape
or form to others and doing so is breaking the copyright and is
therefore illegal.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Blakeney - Dean of the Apple II University in A2Pro on Delphi     |
|                    Delphi Apple II Forums Web Pages                    |
| A2: http://www.delphi.com/apple2   A2Pro: http://www.delphi.com/a2pro  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+