Re: Copyright request?!?

[Cameron Kaiser <cdkaiser@delete.these.four.words.concentric.net>]

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.

>     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.

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. 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.
Nevertheless, they gave permission first, or it would be piracy, no matter
what.

--
Cameron Kaiser * cdkaiser.cris@com * powered by eight bits * operating on faith
  -- supporting the Commodore 64/128:  http://www.armory.com/~spectre/cwi/ --
   head moderator comp.binaries.cbm * cbm special forces unit $ea31 (tincsf)
personal page http://calvin.ptloma.edu/~spectre/ * "when in doubt, take a pawn"