Re: Law- Asimov and A2-Delphi

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

tward@XXXXenteract.com writes ...

 ....
> 
> Shareware and freeware are, by definition, freely distributable. There
> have always been some exceptions such as not charging more than the cost
> of a disk (for mail distribution) or basic connect charges (for online
> distribution.) There are also a few pieces of software that are limited
> in where they can be distributed. But these exceptions are always stated
> in the software's documentation. If a piece of shareware or freeware
> does not have one of these exceptions listed in its documentation, then
> it can be freely distributed =anywhere=.

     However this may be, it has not prevented authors from demanding
that sites delist a piece of Apple II software whenever they please. It
has become accepted practice to comply with such demands/requests
whatever the originally declared status of a piece of software.

     Technically, your talk of "exceptions" does, in itself, damage the
shareware concept. First: Any exceptions may or may not be specified in
an accompanying info file. Some shareware (and freeware) can be quite
large and time-consuming to download, decompress, and examine for
exceptions. Second: Once you speak of "exceptions", you permit almost
anything by way of restrictions-- e.g. "... on any site except those I
do not like", etc.. 



> 
> You cannot change the status of a previously available shareware or
> freeware product. You cannot "revoke" the shareware or freeware status.
 ....

     So one might wish. Even so, thanks to those who yelp about "piracy"
at the drop of a hat, it has become accepted practice that Apple II
archive sites will recognize a request by a copyright owner to delist
_any_ piece of software. Whatever the normal shareware practice in
PC-ville, etc., it is too easy to obtain sympathy for "author rights"
via attack postings and "software piracy" charges. Apple II archives
have, simply, decided that it is not worth putting up with the flak.


> Commercial software, by definition, is =not= freely distributable.
 ....

     Certain Apple II developers wished to use software availability as
a weapon. These developers demanded the right of selective "shareware"
and "freeware" distribution. Well, they have it. Consequently, there can
be no presumption of free distribution for Apple II "shareware" or
"freeware". Apple II "Shareware" and "freeware" are, if anything, less
free than old commercial software.

     The above illustrates why it is so important that archive contents
be open for inspection by anyone without paying some fee. "Shareware",
"freeware", and old commercial ware copyright owners and users can
examine the archive. An owner can decide whether or not a piece of
software should be delisted. 



> .... I am saying that the online services follow the law by
> not even carrying these titles unless they have permission to do so.

     With the exception of a few cases where a copyright owner is
contacted and specific site permission obtained, the online service
Apple II archives merely _hope_ they have permissions, just like every
other Apple II archive. 



> The fact that asimov is free and the online services are paid makes no
> difference.

     On an open free site, it is much more likely that a copyright owner
knows some piece of "shareware", "freeware", or commercial ware is
present and in what form _and_ that the copyright owner approves. On a
hidden for-pay site, who can say?

     Also, cases of genuine software piracy typically involve a monetary
gain. A for-pay site obtains a monetary gain while a free, open site
does not.   

     
> 
> Rubywand, I want you to answer a simple question. Yes or no. Is asimov
> breaking any laws?

     No.

     The opinion is based upon the implicit stance of legally
constituted law enforcement authorities.

     In a very real sense, copyright owners and legally constituted law
enforcement agencies have 'spoken' on this question. That the archive is
within the Law is indicated via the fact of the archive's continued
existence after years of operation in the open for all to see. The
logically correct position on the question is, at any given time,
determined by the stance of the Law vis-a-vis the archive.
 

> Genie and Delphi are not.
 ....

     Perhaps this is so. The fact that these are for-pay archives with
contents concealed from most users makes it less likely that they have
been thoroughly examined. Moreover, non-subscribers are users who do
not, as a rule, look for ways to wreck Apple II resources. 

     It is much easier to be confident about a free, open site which has
been tested for years and continues to serve Apple II users.



Rubywand