Re: AppleWorks GS and reclassification

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

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

     Sounds like a pretty good option!


> 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?

     So nothing: if you're an old timer fat with software or someone who
doesn't care about 99% of old commercial products.

     If, however, you're interested in, say, games and want to play them in
this lifetime, waiting for declassification makes no sense-- especially
since, in most cases, it isn't going to happen.



> That is the only legal option  you have 

     Not correct. If that view were anything but a vigilante pipedream, the
A2, C-64, etc. archives which offer old commercial wares for download would
have been shut down years ago.



> so if you want to see a title
> reclassified for download you have to put in the effort to get that to
> happen.

     You make it sound like getting software reclassified is purely a
function of effort. It is not. Once contacted, most copyright owners want
nothing to do with reclassifying their property.


> 
> >     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.

     Yes; getting listed on the Treasure Chest site is worth something. On
the other hand, GS WorldView always promos game companies associated with
software mentioned in articles (whether or not the software has been
reclassified).  Besides, just a single mention on Csa2 or
comp.emulators.apple2-- e.g. when someone is directed to Asimov, Fairway, ...
to find a game-- is likely to reach more readers than a listing on any single
web site.



> 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.

     I wish that were so; it would be a good selling point. However, the
owners you can find are generally companies which want nothing to do with
shareware. (Heck, they will not even accept contributions offered by users
who download one of their oldies.)  The cost of setting up ways to get
something from old wares exceeds what small income might result.


> There are other good reasons as well.

     Possibly there are other reasons; I doubt that any of them relate to
adequately compensating the owner for the costs and bother of
reclassification plus the partial or complete loss of ownership rights.


> 
> 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.
 ....

     Right! So, since most of the owners who might be reached know very well
that their out of print oldies are available for download from numerous A2
and C-64 sites, why not abide by their clear choice?

     Who are we to insist that every owner state, publicly and/or in writing,
whether or not a product should be available? A "Yes" equates to
reclassification, hassle, and loss of ownership rights. A "No" is likely to
get the product booted off the archives and ruin its promotional value.




> > 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.
 ....

     Which is another way of saying that it is not up to you. Answering
neither "Yes" nor "No"-- i.e. saying nothing-- is easily the best stance for
any owner who wishes to enjoy promotional benefits from their property. Yet,
you refuse to permit owners this option.



> 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.

     Virtually the only monetary value of the property is as a promotional
item _for_ the owner. That is, the fact that someone is paying for an
internet site, managing it, and "giving away" a copy of an oldie _is_ most or
all of the product's value. The moment the property is removed from the
archives, most of its value vanishes.

     So, ethically speaking, the archives are doing what is right. Indeed, it
would be unfair for an archive to arbitrarily remove any item.

     Legally speaking, you will get nowhere unless someone is damaged. To
claim that the situation is "illegal regarless of whether it helps the
copyright holder or not" is absurd.

     Again, if these sites were operating illegally, then, genuine law
enforcement authorities would surely have responded by now to the endless
whining, email campaigns, and complaining by a few trouble makers (with no
legal standing) who just don't get it.

     Actually, legally constituted law enforcement authorities have
responded. They have said your position is wrong. In light of this fact,
continued attacks on the archives as "illegal" is plainly a matter of taking
the law into your own hands.



> 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.
 ....

     True. This happens regularly-- not so much bugging the author but, yes,
requests for information, hints, fixes and workarounds are common on Cea2 and
Csa2. As a result, sites like Asimov, Apple II Textfiles, Tarnover, Ground,
USA2WUG, Uni-kl.de, Interactive Fiction, and many series-specific sites
maintain large documentation/hint/patch collections.

     The point of the above is that the _owner_ is not burdened with needing
to maintain the product. If, on the other hand, Origin, SSI, ... makes a
public gift of a product, the expectation is that major glitches,
compatibility problems, etc. will be fixed and that there will be a way to
get original documentation if only on-line.



> 
> >     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?

LOL! Why not just hold the copyright owner's children for ransom.



> 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.
 ....

     The owner has the right to say nothing as well as the right to expect
civil behavior from users. The archives respect these rights. Should the
owner wish a product withdrawn, the archives will do it.



> > 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.
 ....

     In that case, since there are more and bigger public A2 archives than
ever, you should conclude that the presence of products on the archives
promotes efforts for reclassification!

     Regarding progress made, it is surely a credit to those involved. Now,
consider what remains to be done. Compare the IIgs game listings on Tarnover
or Fairway with those on Treasure Chest. Do the same for 8-bit software on
Asimov.

     There are many benefits to reclassification. Obviously, however, it can
not work as the only method for making software available to users. Most out
of print commercial software will not be 'reclassified' until the copyrights
expire. You know this as well as I do.


     Really, in most respects, your arguments do not appear to make sense.
The established position of legitimate law enforcement authorites seems to
mean nothing to you. Instead, your definition of "illegal" comes down to
whatever you happen not to like. As for the desire of users for access to
software, your response is to wait because _you_ have declared the archives
illegal.

     You take it upon yourself to decide what's best for someone else's
property; and, then, say it does not matter whether or not its value is
increased by being where you do not want it to be. You claim to be the
champion of owner rights; yet, you reject the choices owners have made and
see nothing wrong in bullying them into the choice _you_ think is best.

     Take a moment to reconsider your position. It is clear that the archives
have the support of users, copyright owners, and the Law. There is no good
reason they should not have your support, too.




Rubywand