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

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Supertimer writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
> >Supertimer writes ...
> >>
> >> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> >>
 ....
> 
> >     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.
> 
> Says who?

     Pretty much everyone. It is this generally low valuation which
makes speculation in old software possible. If lots of people thought
the stuff were valuable, the speculator could not buy it at rock bottom
prices.

 ....

> 
> Let's say a legitamate videotape store has fifty boxes full of old tapes
> that Paramount no longer makes.  If the store owner reports to the
> police that a rival store across the street is giving away copies of the
> title (just bring your own videotape...you can use our VCR)...do the
> police have a right under the law to respond?
>

     Probably. This is actually another case of selling. The owner
giving away the old tapes is using them as a 'loss leader' to attract
customers.

 ....

> 
> Who is the keeper of Asimov?  Just curious...
> If we all know how to contact him, maybe we can work something out.
>

     I do not know. There is an email address displayed somewhere on the
site. It may be in the "unsorted" area where the Asimov manager is
requesting help from users to sort through some old software.

 ....

> >
> >    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.
> 
> Now this is where I disagree.  If the software is still being sold and
> thus has commercial value, Asimov is breaking the law even if it is
> not profiting.  Here's why --
> 
> Some years ago, an MIT student made wares available on his
> school account.  He was arrested and taken to court.  The court
> ruled that since he did not profit, he was not pirating...so far, so
> good...

     One moment. You are saying that a court has ruled that making
software available is _not_ piracy so long as the one doing it does not
make a profit.

     The interesting thing about the ruling is that it is a
significantly less restraining definition of "piracy" than the one we
have been using. 


> 
> BUT...recently, President Clinton signed into law a bill that makes
> having copies of a software available for public download a crime
> for the system operator.  If the value of the software exceeds a
> certain amount...$100 I think...then the site can be prosecuted.
>

     Value, of course, is not the same as price. This seems like a fair
law so long as it does not ruin distribution of shareware.

 
> Under the new definition, the making available of Atarisoft titles
> and AppleWorks is piracy.  The other wares may not be...
>

     If the new law should cover any of the titles offered on Asimov,
then, naturally, Asimov should delist those titles. You are, however,
unlikely to find any program on Asimov with a value exceeding $100.
Actually, it would be interesting to have a listing of Asimov wares
which exceed a real market value of $1.

     Evidently, the only version of Appleworks maintained on Asimov is
Appleworks 2.0. If you can demonstrate that this oldie has a value
exceeding $100 you should contact the copyright holder and ask for a
job.


 
> >     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.
> 
> Now even I think that's a round-about argument.

    "Round-about argument"? Perhaps. The idea is that users are more
likely to buy an original of an old game which they have had an
opportunity to try out. For example, you will find that many new PC
releases are available for free downloading in versions which can be
played through a few Levels.


> If the reseller is
> complaining, obviously he thinks Asimov hosting of software is
> harming sales of his product...

     Maybe. It appears that legal authorities either disagree about any
claimed harm or believe that the complainer has no legal standing
vis-a-vis Asimov.

     Given the above, we would appear to be back to considering ways for
Asimov and old wares speculators to cooperate. That is, we must deal
with reality.

     If an old wares seller insists upon calling Asimov a "pirate site",
then, as illustrated in you court case example, he/she would seem to be
guilty of making a charge which is neither logically nor legally
supported. Even worse, the speculator is likely to promote feelings of
ill will which make agreement on reaching an accommodation with Asimov
difficult. 



> 
> >     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.
> 
> True; but we know that we can in fact order Atarisoft titles and AW3.0.

     You can order all kinds of things. Where are current Atarisoft
wares located on Asimov? Where is Awks 3.0 on Asimov?

> 
> >     Again, if some accommodation is to be reached between old wares
> >sellers and Asimov, it is the parties involved who must work things out.
> 
> I am just talking hypothetically...if the police were to be notified, the
> Atarisoft and AppleWorks titles could in fact be violating the President's
> new Internet piracy law...
>

     If you like, we can trade hypotheticals until hell freezes.
Appleworks 2.0 has very little real market value. As for Atarisoft
stuff, Asimov's function is to maintain disk images of old out of print
Apple II wares. If you believe any currently published wares are located
on Asimov, you might consider emailing the Asimov management with your
information and informing Csa2 readers of the outcome. 

 
> >>
> >> 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?
> 
> How about the law?

     Okay; how about the Law? It is still in operation and seems to be
doing well enough-- so does Asimov.


>  I might be persuaded to agree that the majority
> of products on Asimov is not piracy, but some apparently are.

     Since none of the wares on Asimov has a real market value exceeding
$100 and since Asimov is a free service, your own court-supported
definition of "piracy" excludes this possibility.

 ....

> 
> >     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?
> 
> I don't agree with this argument.  Once downloaded, few buy.  On the
> other hand, if they were not available for download, some old enthusiast
> might buy the real thing.
>

     Some might. On the third hand, many more may be buying old Apple II
game originals right now because they are attracted by an active gaming
culture and had an opportunity to try this or that game and decide that
they want the real thing.

     The idea behind my suggestion that old Apple II wares sellers
arrange to advertise on Asimov is that Asimov is one place lots of Apple
II game players show up. Asimov provides the free 'try-out' and sellers
are ready to supply in-box originals complete with docs and other
goodies (e.g. the Radiation Badge in Omega).


 ....

> >> 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.
> 
> Although it seems like I am on their side, I am not.  I say, let Asimov
> keep the wares that are truly abandoned.  My disagreement is with
> Asimov's treatment of resellers.
 ....

     What about the bogus charges, insults, and other bad treatment of
Asimov by old wares resellers. Yet, Asimov has a perfectly valid mission
and provides a valuable service.

     Do you expect Asimov to delist titles just to help one or two
individual's make a profit on old wares? Would you support closing the
public libraries to boost sales at book shops?

     Maybe Asimov will agree to, for a time, delist certain titles to
help promote old wares sales. It is not, however, an action Asimov is
required to take.

     If we are going to assist sellers of ancient Apple II wares, it
will not be by attacking Asimov. Nor does 'being concerned' about the
fate of old Apple II wares speculators help them-- mainly, it helps
those who are concerned feel good. Anyway, "success" in closing Asimov
would promote the proliferation of genuine, for-real piracy. Then,
everyone would have a chance to 'be concerned' about both old and new
software sellers.


> 
> As for my speculator fans, you want to bet Nathan is not going to
> flame me in the next 10 followups because I agree with most of
> what you said (EXCEPT the reseller bit)?

     No problem; Natey's too chicken to flame you after the last few
times you bounced him around.


 
Rubywand