Re: Rant 101- pirates killing ____? (AppleWorks 5.2/6.0!)

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

PJ Killian writes ...
> 
> In article <357F73E5.BB292DF@swbell.net>, rubywand@swbell.net wrote:
> > The Law, in fact, backs Asimov.
> 
> Oh?
> 
> I don't claim to be an expert in copyright law, but this makes no sense to
> me. Aren't copyright laws there for the protection of resellers as much as
> authors?
>

     Not really. The basic idea is to hand the copyright owner a 'loaded
gun' of legal options and let him/her decide what is or is not a
violation. Reseller rights are more difficult to frame since they own
'boxes of stuff' rather than well-defined and established copy rights.


 
> If I buy a hundred thousand books and give photocopies away to whoever
> wants them, I am hurting Barnes and Noble's bottom line. Are you seriously
> proposing that Barnes and Noble (as the reseller) has no legal recourse
> against someone who is giving away bootleg books?

 ....

     If BN does not have a contract for exclusive distribution rights,
they could be up the creek on their own. BN's best bet would be to
contact the copyright holder and have him/her take action.




> It strikes me that so long as
> someone, somewhere is attempting to make money off of a piece of software,
> his or her business is pretty demonstrably hurt by the existance of free
> software available to anyone with an Internet account.
>

     How does this relate to Awks 5?

 
> Insofar as Asimov is used largely by people with emulators trying to do
> very limited things (like play a game that they just couldn't finish 10
> years ago), I doubt that this business is being hurt particularly badly. In
> fact, I would venture to say that the losses incurred by resellers of Apple
> II software because of the existance of emulators and people running disk
> images from Asimov on those emulators is so perilously close to zero as to
> be negligible.

     In the vast majority of cases, the copyright owner clearly
benefits.
This is very easy to demonstrate and, no doubt, explains why copyright
owners permit their old wares to remain on sites like Asimov.
 


> But that should not and does not change the fact that the
> authors of the programs on those images (or their designees) own their
> creations for seventy-five years and nobody but they have the right to
> determine how they can be distributed so far as the law is concerned.

     Yes. Perhaps you should underline the above and consider what you
have said.



> You
> can argue all day as to whether that is the way things should be, it won't
> change how things are.

     There is no need to argue. You are doing fine.


> 
> I think that (all things considered) Asimov is performing a valuable
> service, at least to the emulator crowd, and I would strongly prefer it not
> go away. But I don't think people should kid themselves as to the legality
> of what they're doing.

 ....

     As you say ...

>>

the authors of the programs on those images (or their designees) own
their creations for seventy-five years and nobody but they have the
right to determine how they can be distributed so far as the law is
concerned. 

<<


     So, who are these people who are not supposed to "kid themselves"
about legality? Copyright holders? Or, vigilantes?
 


Rubywand