Re: Copyright request?!?

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Cameron Kaiser writes ...
>
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:
> 
> >     Theft is, certainly, theft. Duplicating copyrighted pics from a magazine
> >for your Science class and downloading ancient Apple II software is not theft.
> >Indeed, in both cases, it is easy to show that the copyright owner benefits.
> 
> The benefit done for/on behalf of the owner makes no difference. The theft
> of an antique vase may benefit the owner in the insurance he might receive. It
> still is theft.
>

     Stealing a vase or the Mona Lisa or an original Ultima I is theft.

     None of the above legally resembles mere copyright infringement. Copyright
infringement happens millions of times every day. If, in the view of the copyright
holder, some infringement negatively impacts chances for monetary benefit from the
owned product, the copyright holder can have the infringement stopped and, even,
seek damages.

     Society's rationale for offering limited protection for creator rights is
essentially self serving and practical: If you want people to create useful stuff,
you need to arrange things so that creators can obtain a monetary payoff. So, it
would be an error to imagine that society's sole interest is protection of creator
rights. Indeed, it is the _intent_ of copyright law that infringement be possible
and _not_ be treated as per se an illegal act. This is society's mechanism for,
eventually, releasing "don't care" creative products into the public domain.

     Copyright law seeks to balance protection of copy rights with the benefits of
wide, easy availability of creative products. It says: "You have exclusive rights
and a shot at making a pile of money. If you feel that some infringement of your
exclusive rights gets in the way of making money from your product, let us know and
we'll squish the offender."

     It is up to _you_ to take enough of an interest in your product to, at least,
notice when your sales plummet because someone is dumping copies at half your
price. And, when you notice, it is up to you to activate the enforcement mechanism.
The payoff is ending the infringement and, possibly, recovering losses plus
something extra. Granted, copyright law does not require that you suffer real or
potential monetary loss in order to obtain the ending of infringement. However,
protection of commercial benefits is the law's primary concern.


 
> >     Some respected members of the Apple II community may honestly believe old
> >software can not legally or rightly be made available for free downloading.
> >They are mistaken and should review the facts.
> 
> They are quite correct.

     Obviously, with regard to legality, they are incorrect. However desperately
they may wish the law agree with their position, it is a silly waste of time and
effort to insist upon maintaining the position in the face of hard, repeatedly
demonstrated reality which says they are flatly wrong.




> 
> I don't disagree with your basic premise: yes, a lot of this software will
> appreciate in value and maintain its worth with a healthy userbase, and it
> is certainly true that hardly any of them have any reasonable income potential
> without that. Indeed, their income potential may increase. But it's still
> piracy unless the copyright owner consents.

     Fortunately, copyright law is more practical. It labels the taking of
liberties with a copyrighted product as "infringement" and says that the copyright
holder can choose to end or not end the infringement. It also permits the copyright
holder to acquire any monetary benefits the infringer may have obtained.




> In the Commodore world, though,
> we've discovered that many of the copyright owners encourage the distribution
> of their old titles, and have even made them available for download from their
> own web pages. (Beam Software/Melbourne House is one shining example.) They
> realise this premise, and reap the benefits in customer goodwill and the PR
> and publicity that may allow their current offerings to sell better.
 ....

    "Get permission first"? in the "Commodore world"???  If this is meant to
characterize the normal way of doing things there, you are mistaken. I've surfed
any number of C-64 sites which offer hundreds of titles for free download for which
there is no prior permission. Often, somewhere, the site will present a disclaimer
to the effect "if a copyright owner objects, the item will be removed from our
listing".

     Occasionally, you will find a C-64 or other download site which offers a
disclaimer which says something like "only for purposes of backing up or replacing
owned originals". Ethically speaking, such a statement is mere trickery. If
offering an item damages the copyright owner, it is wrong to offer it. Legally
speaking, such a disclaimer is useless. Offering the software for public download
without prior approval of the copyright owner is infringement.

     The correct stance is to directly or tacitly admit the infringement and make
every reasonable effort to benefit or, at least, not damage any copyright holder.
And, damage or not, should a copyright owner request that an item be removed, it
should be removed.

     Regarding the instances of C-64 user cooperation with software publishers, you
are talking about copyright holders actively engaged and interested in promoting
their products for sale. You have exactly the same situation here with products
such as Spectrum. Indeed, Apple II users and archives go beyond the letter of the
law with regard to creator rights. 




Rubywand