Re: Where is the beef???

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Willie Yeo writes ...
> 
> Rubywand wrote:
> 
> >      So far, the copyright owner has chosen in favor of free user
> > access. Why does that bother you so much?
> 
>         I stated my stand/opinion, whoever chose not to agree with me has every right
> to do so, including you.
>

    
Thanks!

 
>         I have already stated, that I am *AGAINST* free access to software that are
> commercially avaliable for purchase. I am adding my voice to it, whether the
> administrators of Asimov, AsimovGS, Ground, Caltech choose to listen is within
> their own reasonable mind. I am stating that FTP admins *SHOULD* be obligated
> not to make avaliable these category of software.

     Fine. If you like, you can try to get support for your ideas and
seek a change in the Law. However, before you go forward with your
crusade, you may wish to consider a few facts.

     Quite a lot of old software is offered for sale on
comp.sys.apple2.marketplace and various web sites. The sellers are
individuals with large collections and speculators who buy up this or
that stock of some game oldie. So, the software is "commercially
available".

    
     Naturally, a few sellers are not honest or they are slow to send
items to purchasers or the games they offer are at 'collector item'
prices. Besides which, a number of ads are out of date and items listed
are no longer available.

    
     Obviously, there is no way for an archive to keep track of which
game or utility may really be available on any given day and de-list or
re-list items accordingly. Nearly every archive including old commercial
games would be forced to close.

     As so often seems to be the case, a "moral" idea for the management
of our archives would end up destroying them.


> 
>         And seriously, the copyright owner did *NOT* choose in favor of free access,
> mere silence does *NOT* consititute to agreement.

     The Law does not require explicit agreement. If it did, _no_
archive of any size would exist.

     Even so, it is reasonable to believe that the usual bunch of
would-be archive wreckers have made every effort to inform the
Appleworks 5 copyright owner of its presence on a few archive sites and
to persuade the owner to require its removal. The owner could easily
have the product removed. That it remains is sufficient evidence of
owner approval. It is a generous gesture which II users appreciate.



> Had this been otherwise, you
> think I would not list it on Treasure Chest Project that it can be 'freely
> available for download' ?

     No, because you require both explicit approval and a change of the
software's status. Copyright Law requires neither.

     The Treasure Chest Project as originate on Csa2 and so ably managed
by you seeks to have software reclassified, ideally, to freeware or
public domain status. As you are well aware, achieving this for just one
product can involve quite a lot of time and work. 

     The payoff is that the product and copies of original documentation
can be maintained on any site without concern about the owner requesting
its removal. It can, also, often be included in collections sold be A2
vendors along with printed materials.

     It is unfortunate that you appear to feel that the mission of major
archives like Asimov, Asimov-GS, and Uni-kl.de conflicts with the
mission of the Treasure Chest Project. Actually, there is no conflict. 

 ....

>         Ruby, I stated my opinion <----- O P I N I O N.

    
     Willie, O K A Y.




Rubywand