Re: AppleWorks GS and reclassification

[CUTblakeney@home.com (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:55:16 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
wrote:

>Jeff Blakeney writes ...
>> 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.

What?  You've already lost me.

>     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.

Waiting for declassification or rerelease commercially are your only
legal options.

By the way, if you never ask, they certainly never will become
available legally again.

>> 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.

Whether they've been shut down or not has no bearing of whether what
they are doing is illegal or not.

>     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.

If the copyright owner wants nothing to do with reclassifying their
property, that is their decision and we all must abide by it.  If it
isn't reclassified so that it can be distributed freely then it will
continue to be illegal to distribute it.

>     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.

Messages or articles describing a product is a far cry from actually
giving the product away.

You seem to be implying that if a product is reclassified it will no
longer be mentioned in messages or articles anymore.  Personally I
believe the opposite will happen.  As soon as it is reclassified it
will be mentioned far more freely as you'll be able to also mention
where it is available from legally.

>     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.

So shareware isn't a good choice for companies.  That still doesn't
mean they can't retain the current status of their product or
reclassify it as freeware or public domain.  It is up to them.

>     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.

You seem to think that reclassifying a copyrighted work is very
involved and possibly costly.  All it takes is mailing a signed and
witnessed letter to someone that states the change in status.

If you want to ensure there is no ambiguity or problems later then you
might want to get a lawyer to witness the signing of that letter but
it isn't really necessary.

>     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?

I believe I have asked a few times before for proof that the owners of
the stuff being illegally distributed on the "archives" actually know
that their stuff is there.  I'd also like to have proof that they are
okay with that stuff being there.

If you have contacted these people to let them know that their stuff
is on these "archives" and asked if they minded them being distributed
this way, why didn't you ask for a proper reclassification to avoid
all the problems that you are having now?

>     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.

We are supposed to be law abiding citizens, that's who.  Unless the
product is reclassified to allow distribution via FTP sites or
whatever, it is illegal for us to get it through those means.

By the way, reclassifying a product as shareware or freeware does not
entail any loss of ownership.  It simply changes the distribution
methods allowed and all the rights are retained by the copyright
holder.

And again, if the copyright owner doesn't want the "promotional value"
that you are trying to give them by illegally distributing their
product, that is their decision and we must abide by it.

>> 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.

The product was copyrighted and distribution was restricted when it
was created and released.  Because of this the copyright owner must
change the status of the product to allow different types of
distribution if it is to be made available legally in a different
method than it was orginally.  Until they do, the original copyright
and distribution restrictions are in effect.

So in effect, saying nothing is the same as saying no.

>     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.

There is more value to a product than just monetary value.  This too
gets devalued by illegally distributing someones copyrighted product.

The moment a product is removed from the "archives" then the monetary
value of that product increases for resellers and possibly for the
copyright owner if they decide to make the product available for sale
again.

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

We aren't speaking ethically, we are speaking legally.  You keep
trying to convince people that distributing copyrighted software is
legal which is clearly incorrect.

>     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.

You mean more absurd than saying that we are helping the copyright
holder by stealing their product?  :)

>     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.

Again, whether they've been shut down or not does not mean that what
they are doing isn't illegal.

By the way, there have been several sites and ISP accounts that have
been shut down in the past because of this sort of thing so there is
evidence that action has been taken before.

>     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.

I'd would love to see proof of this as I've never seen any authority
say anything of the sort.

By the way, I'm not taking the law into my own hands, I'm just letting
people know that those "archives" are illegally distributing software.
Taking the law into my own hands would entail trying to sabotage the
sites or other possibly nastier things.

>     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.

Maintaining hints, patches and stuff created by others with their
permission is fine.  Making stuff available against the last express,
written wishes of a copyright owner isn't.

>     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.

Reclassifying a product does not imply that there will be any sort of
fixes, updates or anything.  The reclassification would almost
certainly state the product is being made available as is and would
also state whether the documentation was going to be made available as
well.

What makes you think that if someone reclassifies a product,
especially as freeware or public domain, that they would go to the
trouble, time and expense of tracking down hardware that they can work
on the source with, track down the source, become familiar with the
product again, do fixes to the source, test the fixes and so on?  That
is just insane.

>> 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.

What?  You've lost me again.

>     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.

Yes, the owner has the right to say nothing and if he does then the
product remains at the same status it currently is so they can expect
the users to behave civilly and not go around illegally distributing
it.

The archives clearly don't pay any attention to the rights of the
copyright owners because if they did, they wouldn't make stuff
available without the express permission of the copyright owner.

And again, the owner needs to know that the product is being made
available illegally before they can request that it be removed or take
legal action against the maintainers of the site.

>     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!

Possibly, but most likely only out of digust.  Once a copyright owner
finds out that his product has been available illegally for some time
he might just say to heck with it.  It isn't worth anything to me
anymore because it has already been stolen and distributed to everyone
and his dog so it doesn't matter to me anymore so I'll go ahead and
reclassify it so I won't be bothered by it anymore.

If you want to speak ethically, this sure seems like a nasty way to
treat someone and their property for you own gratification.

>     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.

I never said there wouldn't be a lot of work involved and near the
beginning of this message is a quote from my last message where I
asked you why putting in this kind of effort was so bad but you didn't
really answer me.

>     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.

There are only three ways I can see for a product to become available
to users.  Either the copyright owner starts commercially selling that
product again, the copyright owner reclassifies the product or the
copyright expires.

Yes I do know that we both know this which is why I'm so puzzled by
your assurance that what the "archives" are doing is legal.

>     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.

I hear about copyright violations being prosecuted fairly often.  It
has nothing to do with what I like or not, it is what the law says.

As to the desire of users to get this software my response to them is
to try to find a legal copy of the software because that is the only
way for them to get it at this time.

>     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.

I don't take anything on myself except to inform people that the
copyright on much of the software on the most often mentioned sites in
this newsgroup are still protected by copyright law.

Whether the value is increased or not does not change the fact that it
is still against the law.  If the copyright owner wants to get the
increase in value, they can reclassify the product to do so.

I'm not the champion of anyone's rights but my own.  In messages like
these, I only point out the fact that others rights are being
violated.

>     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.

The "archives" have the support of users that don't mind breaking the
law.  There is still no proof that the copyright owners support the
"archives" and I've seen several instances where copyright owners
objected to the "archives".  The law certainly doesn't support the
"archives" because there are laws that clearly state that illegally
distributing copyrighted works against the express wishes of the
copyright holder is against the law.

There are a number of good reasons why the "archives" should not, and
do not, have my support.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+