Re: Copyright

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Tony Ward writes ...
> 
> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:01:21 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > Instead, what we have is simple copyright infringement and ISDA's implied
> > assertion that copyright infringement is bad.
> 
> Infringement is, by definition, a "bad thing."

     To characterize infringement as "good" makes no sense when the copyright
owner loses income from a product or simply objects to the infringement. To
characterize it as "bad" makes no sense when the copyright holder benefits or
does not mind. 


> It means, literally, an
> encroachment that violates the law or the rights of a person.

     Copyright infringement is ... copyright infringement. The term is well
defined in copyright law. It you want a simple, clear phrase which accurately
characterizes copyright infringement, one is "to take liberties with the use of
copyrighted material".

   
> Are you
> implying that copyright infringement is a good thing? Or are you just
> saying that it's okay as long as the copyright holders ignore or don't
> know about the infringements?
>

     Suppose you are invited to an annual party at a friend's home. You arrive
and discover that there is no place to park except in front of a neighbor's
house. None of the neighbors seem to be home. So, without asking permission,
you park your car.

     You did not want to take the liberty of parking where you did. But,
compared to not parking and passing up the party, the imposition upon the
neighbor is minor. Besides, occasionally having a neighbor's friends and family
park in front of your house is, normally, considered 'part of the game' of
being a good neighbor.

     Suppose you wish to release a new game for the Apple II. You check with
Apple and discover that ProDOS is not licensed by Apple (BTW, it isn't). If
ProDOS is not on the diskette, getting the game going becomes a good deal more
bother for the user; so, reasoning that Apple will not mind, you include
ProDOS. 

     Whether it is a parking space or a software copyright, taking liberties
with someone else's property is always an uncomfortable situation. It is much
better to have permission to use the property. That is one of the benefits of
the Treasure Chest project.


     There is nothing cute or clever about copyright infringement. It just
happens that, in the real world, infringement of out-of-print software
copyrights is 'part of the game' played by archives, users, and copyright
holders.

     As you implied earlier, most owners of out-of-print Apple II commercial
products, once informed, do not mind having their property available for free
download. Actually, by now, many if not most copyright holders are sure to be
aware that their stuff is available on several free archives. That hardly any
owner requests the removal of an item confirms the widely held belief that,
really, the continued availability of the software is a plus for the owner.

     The catch in making all of this official is getting a verifiable okay from
each owner. Copyright law discourages 'kind of owning' a product. If you want
to maintain control of your property, you do not say that downloading it for
free is okay. And, if you do not want it to be free, it is best to 'not know'
anything about its availability for free downloading.

     The solution is infringement. Copyright holders get to protect their
ownership, avoid hassle, and enjoy the advantages of free advertising (or,
sometimes, an owner just likes the idea that his/her game is still being
played). Whenever an owner pleases, the infringement can be 'discovered' and
ended.

     Meanwhile, the archives must exercise good judgement about what is "okay"
to offer and what is not; and users must speak up when there is concern that
owner benefits from a product may be damaged. This sensativity to owner rights
and the fact that archive contents are public helps to protect even copyright
owners who are not currently aware that a product is maintained on an archive.

     In return Apple II users get access to out-of-print software and
developers of new products are defended from software piracy.

     It is not a nice neat 'black and white' arrangement; but, it is reasonable
and fair. And, in the real world, it is what works.




Rubywand