Re: Asimov performs a valuable service; so why fight over it

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

tward@XXXXenteract.com writes ...
> 
> Rubywand,
> 
> I am truly astonished at your ability to twist the facts and present your
> arguments in such a convincing manner.

     The impact of the presentation springs from its essential truth and
from conviction. So long as your predisposition is to identify with
error, the truth will be a stumbling block. 

 ....
 
> Granted, very few companies are going to complain about the Asimov site.
> I will go so far as to agree that some of them, if they knew about Asimov,
> would embrace the tiny bit of publicity. But that does not make it right.

     The basic idea behind copyright law is to hand the copyright owner
a 'loaded gun' with which to defend his/her rights to a product.

     In cases of  blatant production of 'knock offs' and international
treaty violations the law enforcement authorities will, often, act
against copyright violations under associated law.

     Otherwise, it is standard practice to let the copyright owner
decide whether or not he/she disapproves of the treatment of his/her
property and whether or not to call upon the legal system for action.
The copyright holder is the first legal 'court' in matters involving
his/her property.


     You have shown, neither in specific fact no via logic, that any
copyright holder experiences loss or is damaged by the archiving of old
out of print Apple II software. You have quoted no instance of any
specific product being archived against the will of a copyright holder.

     Meanwhile, you have conceded that a copyright holder might well
benefit from the resulting free publicity resulting from user exposure
to old out of print Apple II software via the archive. You failed to
note that continued old wares gaming activity helps maintain interest in
classics and makes it much easier to promote releases of old games on
new platforms.

     You have shown no wrong, admitted good, and, yet, you come up with:
"But that does not make it right." This is not merely unsupported
opinion; it is opinion which makes no sense. 
  

 ....

 
> I do believe that the Asimov site provides a useful service. There's no
> point in letting old software die because it is no longer being sold. But
> there are rules for this sort of thing. You keep saying that it's up to
> the copyright holder to come forward and complain if he/she so desires.
> That's like saying it's up to my neighbor to complain about the burning
> pile of old tires in my backyard that's polluting the neighborhood.

 ....

     Your pollution damages your neighbor. It also damages your
neighborhood. It is properly the concern of both your neighbor and law
enforcement authorities. Your analogy has nothing to do with copyrights
or software archives.


 
> The problem here is that =most= of the software on the Asimov site really
> deserves to be there. =Most= of it is old software created by people who
> no longer care one way or another about it. Does that make it right? No.

     It certainly does not make it wrong. Meanwhile, users and copyright
owners continue to benefit. No wrong + Right = __?
 


> But who's going to complain? Unfortunately =some= of the software has no
> business being there. I wonder if Roger Wagner is aware that Merlin is
> there. Roger, if I am not mistaken, is still selling Merlin. Maybe the one
> on Asimov is an older version, but that's an invalid argument. Same goes
> for AppleWorks.

     Roger Wagner Publishing may, still, fill phone orders for Merlin
8/16 and/or Merlin 16+. (If so, it would be good to hear; Merlin is a
very good assembler package.)  My last check of RWP's web site failed to
find any mention of Apple II products. Mainly, the company seems to be
into HyperMedia products for modern platforms.

     As you may know, Roger Wagner is among the original 'old line'
developers of Apple II software. His Assembly Lines: The Book is an
Apple II assem programming classic. It would come as no surprise to find
that he knows some version of Merlin is maintained on Asimov and is
pleased to see it there.

     You mention "Appleworks". As usual for those who wish to complain
about Asimov, you omit the "2.0". Appleworks 2.0 is a rather old word
processor which happens, also, to be a good choice for owners of 128k
Apple IIe's. It is likely to remain on Asimov as long as the copyright
owner permits it to remain.

 


> 
> You want a specific example of piracy? Okay. I wonder if InTrec is aware
> that ProTERM 3.1, yes the latest version that is still being sold
> commercially, is being given away free of charge on Asimov. That, my
> friend, is piracy pure and simple.

     Before you make slanderous charges, it would be a good idea to make
sure of your facts.

 A. The version maintained on Asimov was downloaded, moved to our GS,
and checked against a 2 year-old original diskette included the ProTerm
package sent to me by Intrec. As indicated by file dates and sizes,
version of ProDOS included, etc. my version is more recent. Even my
version is, by now, probably not the most recent. (I do need to send in
that registration card!)

    So, your claim that Asimov maintains the "latest version" is untrue.


B. Asimov is maintaining a disk image of an old version. It can not
offer ProTerm's manual. ProTerm's excellent manual is a central
attraction of the ProTerm package.

   


> Well, InTrec is aware now because I
> told them about it yesterday.

 ....

     It will be interesting to watch and see what happens. Perhaps
Intrec will request that the file be removed. Perhaps not. If Intrec
requests that the file be removed and it disappears from the archive,
then we shall have a demonstration that the archive does respect owner
rights and that 'the process works'.     



Rubywand