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

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

>Supertimer writes ...
>
>> 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.

Strike that.  Make the example someone standing in front of the
video store with a VCR offering to let anyone copy the tape.  ;-)

>> 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.

Under the old law...yes and in fact that case was very publicised
...the parties ended up on Nightline when the alleged crime
occured.

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

What happened was the court ruled that it was not piracy
existing law, so Congress and the President drafted a tougher
law.  See, the old law did not take into account the Internet
and BBS systems...the new law makes system operators
responsible.

The old law makes it illegal for the uploader and the downloader.
They ARE commiting piracy.  The SYSTEM hosting the wares
was not responsible (under the old law)...hence the need for a
new law...

>> 
>> 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.

Of course.  Shareware is exempted because the author grants
explicit permission.  It is copyrighted commercial software that
is in question...like the one found on the MIT student's account.

 
>> 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.

The problem is that the definition of value in this case includes
the value lost to a reseller.  If Shareware Solutions II or Alltech
loses $100 over its entire stock of software because sales are
diverted, they can bring up the issue under the law.  In fact, in
the case of the MIT student, I recall that it was a software chain
store that filed the complaint.

AW 2.0 is questionable, of course.  I think (but can't be sure)
that there is a provision dealing with software versions.  That
if the distribution of one version robs the value of a later version,
the law kicks in.

Documentation on this law should be available everwhere on
the net....I just can't remember the name of the student or the
name of the bill that became this law right now, but I am not
lying when I tell you that it exists...