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

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

>Steven Lichter writes ...
>
>> I still support the programs I own,
>> though I have not even sold one since I took them over. Should I catch
>> someone allowing any of mine to be D/L or used I can assure you they will
>> really regret doing it.
>>
>
>     Good for you. As the copyright holder you have every right to act
>to prevent your programs from being made available on Asimov. Moreover,
>you can, no doubt, count upon the support of most Csa2 readers.
>
>     My situation is very similar to yours. A difference is that, should
>one of my copyrighted wares appear on Asimov, the inclination would,
>most likely, be to make sure that it is a current version and permit it
>to remain.
>
>     Each of us has exercised copyright owner privileges. Your program
>would not be available on Asimov; mine would.
>
>     Meanwhile, neither you nor I have any legal standing at all
>regarding choices by another copyright holder.

There is one problem with this argument being applied to Asimov.

As long as software has commercial value, that software, even if out
of publication, needs to be protected.

I have read that when Joe Kohn complained that the Atarisoft titles
that he paid good money to Big Red Computer Club for was found
on Asimov and Asimov was contacted, it did nothing about it.

The purpose of copyright is more than just to protect the author or
the publisher. When a retailer buys a product, like a box of compact
discs, from a publisher, the retailer expects to be able to make a
profit off it.  If a boot-leg version of the disc is available, that kills the
inherent value of the real compact disc.

I actually agree with you that if no one complains, then Asimov
might be doing something useful in preserving A2 wares (although
I still think it is mostly catering to emulators).  I also agree that it is
odd that Nathan Mates, who has no personal stake in the software,
is out on a holy war (although I somewhat understand his desire to
side with the hard line since he is a programmer).  What I think
needs to happen for the Asimov argument to work is for the valid
complaints to extend beyond the copyright holder to anyone that
is significantly affected economically by the violation of copyright.

Big Red Computer Club took over the remaining stock of Atarisoft
titles and it paid good money to do this.  In essense, part of the
value protected by copyright was transferred from Atarisoft to BRCC.
When Shareware Solutions II bought out BRCC's stock, that value
was transferred to it.  If Asimov turns a blind eye to the request of
the current owner of that value, it robs that value....

That's just my take on the matter.