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

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Supertimer writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
> >     Evidently, "the definition of piracy" is whatever you feel like it
> >should be at any given moment. Asimov is under no legal constraint to
> >protect speculators in old, out of print wares.
>

     First, my apologies for not posting a reply to your earlier message
on this topic. A detailed response was lost when I left the computer to
get ready to watch Buffy the Vampyre Slayer. Someone came along and
decided to shut down Netscape and turn off the computer before the reply
was sent. 

 
> I don't know about that...if "speculators" mean retailers, I would think
> they are under some sort of legal constraint.  If some music is out
> of print, but Tower records is harmed by piracy of that title, then they
> can request that the law be enforced as I understand it.  Copyright
> law is meant not only to protect copyright holders, but also retailers.
>

     Certainly, there have been law enforcement raids upon pirate
producers of video tapes and CD's. One important distinction between
such situations and Asimov is that Asimov is not selling anything. The
reason this is important is that selling something for a profit
demonstrates that is has real market value. Practically everyone agrees
that the wares maintained on Asimov have so little market value that the
copyright holders do not try to sell them.

     Retailers of current CD's, tapes, etc. are not viewed as
"speculators" because publishers, consumers, and legal authorities all
agree that their wares have real, reasonably well established, market
value.

     Someone who buys 50 boxes of old software stock from someone who,
earlier, bought the remaining stock of a distressed distributor knows
very well that some risk is involved. After all, the stuff has been
around for years and remained unsold.

     The speculator knows that lots of users already own the software
and that users do trade software with friends. He/she also knows that
copyright holders, consumers, and legal authorities are in general
agreement that the software has had its fair shot at making a profit.

     All of the above factors are part of the software speculator's
Reality. You 'know the score' and buy the 50 boxes of stuff anyway.

     The buyer is speculating that he/she can make a profit. For
example, the very fact that the software is old could, as in the case of
Apple II Ultima, enhance its value. You may 'hit it big'; but, you can
lose big, too. No one owes you a thing; but, then, no one has a right to
bitch when you become a millionaire, either.

     The opportunity to have the original diskettes, documentation, etc.
in the original box is a major selling point, indeed, The major selling
point in favor of anyone selling old software.

     Asimov maintains disk images. It does not try to supply in-box
copies complete with documentation. On the other hand Asimov does
attract game players and it does give downloaders a look at many
products. 

     Were sellers to have, say, a folder on Asimov where their originals
are advertised, they might do a very good business with users who like a
game and want to own and play the 'real thing'. This would be especially
true of major adventures, but, could also apply to owning the original
Super Bunny complete with the "Origins of Super Bunny" comic book,
getting the real Elite complete with the "Dark Wheel" novella, etc..

     Software sellers, Apple II users, Asimov, and copyright holders who
permit their wares to be maintained on Asimov could all benefit from a
cooperative arrangement such as the above.  

         
 
> It all depends on how valuable the product is.  In Joe Kohn's Atarisoft
> case, I think it is valuable enough to be a real concern.  Atarisoft
> sold the stock to Big Red Computer Club which sold the stock to
> Shareware Solutions II.  We are not talking about just a few copies
> here....
> 
> >     It may be that, if approached sanely and politely, Asimov managers
> >can be persuaded to promote the efforts of old wares sellers.
> 
> I am all for sane discussion, as this is turning out to be...
>

     Fine; and, as you say, the discussion has been generally polite and
there appears to be a genuine wish to reach a fair resolution.


 
> >    No doubt, you will be surprised to learn that, via calm, polite
> >email, my efforts have been directed toward suggesting a policy of
> >protecting software sellers of old wares-- sellers who, in fact, truly
> >make the old wares available.
> 
> That will go a long way to making the Asimov argument work.  If
> retailers can be protected, that makes the argument more legit.
>

     Yes; however, neither of us runs Asimov or is trying to sell piles
of original oldies. It is up to Asimov to decide whether or not to try
including a space for old wares seller advertisements or to suggest
other arrangements.

     As to possibly delisting wares made available by a seller, it is
quite a lot to ask. Asimov is 'in the business' of maintaining old out
of print wares. That is the job of an archive. Perhaps, delisting an
item would turn out to harm sales should some kind of on-site seller
advertising arrangement be made.


     Were Asimov to agree to delist an item there would have to be a
corresponding agreement from the seller to, in fact, make the item
available. "Available" means the seller would need to advertise the item
at a price which would sell. After the item is sold out or some
reasonable period of time, the disk image version could, again, become
available for downloading.

     Again, if some accommodation is to be reached between old wares
sellers and Asimov, it is the parties involved who must work things out.

 ....

> 
> However, in order for the Asimov argument to work, RETAILERS
> COMPLAINTS MUST ALSO BE RESPECTED.

     Why? If an old wares seller attacks the Asimov archive and insults
its managers, what makes you suppose that Asimov will respect his/her
complaints? Who is it that you imagine will make Asimov respect any
software speculator's complaints?

     One of the realities of the current situation is that Asimov is
vastly more important to most Apple II users than all of the current old
software sellers combined. Lots of users are willing to complain about
this or that action by Asimov; but, very few would support attemps to
close such a valuable archive. Most II users like Asimov.

     Asimov performs a service which benefits copyright holders and
users. Whether or not they know or wish to admit it, Asimov also
benefits software sellers by helping to maintain interest in II
computing. Even old wares sellers should be grateful: How much would
their Apple II Ultima, Questron, Super Bunny, etc. Originals be worth if
no one were playing the games?


      
> If wares available
> on Asimov harms ANYONE in the economic sense, then by the
> very definition, it is piracy.
>

     Since when? Retailers, speculators, investors, buyers and sellers
of every kind get kicked around every day in the normal course of
capitalistic competition. Asimov does not owe you, me, old software
speculators, or anyone else a thing. As long as the site does not
maintain wares against the wishes of copyright holders, any charge of
"piracy" is not only bogus but decidedly counter-productive.
     
 

> One more thing that would make Asimov more acceptable is if
> they accept files in .shk format.  If Asimov really wants to be a
> real service to real A2 users as well as emulators, they should
> support this format too...
 ....

     Well, I guess you know you just blew about 50 rating points with
your software speculator fans. Of course, you have a point. Everyone
knows Asimov is as much or more an Apple II old wares archive as it is
an "emulator site". Probably, Asimov prefers the zipped disk image
format because it is accessible via several platforms. Besides, quite a
few old wares are already maintained in plain zip or shk "file format"
form.


Rubywand