Re: Official Apple II documentation?

["bill.martens@gmail.com" <bill.martens@gmail.com>]

On Jul 3, 6:39 pm, drkenb <kbuchholz1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I typically don't participate in these online circle jerks, but I do
> need to clarify a few things and to correct some outright lies posted
> here.
>
> When I puthttp://www.Apple2Online.comup 3 months ago, I did so with
> the intention of providing a free, public-access library of all things
> Apple II.  The fact that the site received over 7500 hits the first
> three months, plus all of the positive comments I've received from the
> users leads me to believe that the library is filling a previously
> unmet need.  ALL of the feedback I have received to date, with the
> exception of one individual (can you guess who?), has been positive.
> All of the content owners I've contacted about having their content on
> the site have been pleased to be included.
>
> The greatest majority of the content was gleaned from numerous ftp and
> web sites.  From Day 1 the A2OL home page has stated that if there is
> any content that the legal content owner wishes to have removed, to
> let me know & I am only glad to comply with those wishes. As Eric
> Sheppard stated, when A2OL first went up, there were several items for
> which his company has the exclusive rights to sell. What Eric didn't
> say here is that when he contacted me to inform me that several of the
> offerings on A2OL were items that his company owns the legal rights to
> and continues to sell, I IMMEDIATELY removed each and every one of
> them and then followed up with an email to him confirming that those
> items were removed and offered my sincere apologies.  Similarly, when
> Bill Martens informed me of several items that are the property of
> Call Apple, those were removed IMMEDIATELY and he was informed of
> such. The object of A2OL is to serve as a free public-access library,
> not to offer content that is not in the public domain.
>
> This idea that I took other folks content and plastered my name all
> over it is simply untrue.  I have never removed someone else's name
> from a software title, manual, etc., and put DRKENB on it as claimed
> in this thread.  What I did do was to put the "www.Apple2Online.com"
> identifier as an indication that the photo was currently being
> downloaded from A2OL, but the moment Bill Martens indicated to me that
> he thought I was claiming these photos as my own, even though that was
> NOT my intent, I realized how it might appear so I removed EVERY photo
> from the site, implemented a policy by where ONLY original content
> photos contributed by the content owner are accepted on the site and
> commenced with a new photo library.  Each photo is tagged with a
> "Photo courtesy of {contributor}" and the "www.Apple2Online.com" tag
> to indicate from where it is downloaded.  [As an aside to those who
> are posting photos on the net: if you do not include some identifier
> on your photo, how is someone to contact you to get your permission to
> reproduce/redistribute?  Just some food-for-thought...]
>
> A2OL is paid for entirely out of my own pocket.  Unlike all of the
> other sites mentioned in this thread, A2OL does NOT generate any
> revenue from advertisements, nor does it have any other revenue
> streams.  If my little website is causing someone to loose a few
> pennies a month in advertising revenue, so be it.
>
> I invite each and every one of you to visithttp://www.Apple2Online.com
> to see for yourself what the site is about before you make up your
> mind as to what I am doing and not doing and what the site contains
> and does not contain.  And again I will reiterate, if you are the
> legal content owner and wish to have your content removed, please
> contact me immediately so that I can comply with your wishes.

Lets for all intent and purposes set the record straight.  The only
thing you did was to rip everyone's websites and put all the content
up on yours, irrespective of copyright or distribution rights.
Having to contact you at all to ask you to remove copyrighted content
is ridiculous.  We should not have to do that since our copyright is
posted clearly on the bottom of each website page and also on each
file in our library.  Other folks post it in their usage pages and
even in the properties of their files.  If you want to create an
original website, no one here has an issue with that.  Pasting your
website URL all over other folks images, documents, and other items
does not make it yours or give you the right to post it on your
website.

You posted not only Eric's stuff, but CA stuff, all the Applied
Engineering stuff that Brian Wiser created over two years, Tony Diaz's
ProTerm distribution and his card photos, are just a few items among
others that are too numerous to mention in this short posting.   Many
of the documents even have the URL of the websites they came from and
the owners of those websites have expressed dismay with your posting
them on your site. I know of content from at least 5 of my sites which
were on there.  We do not build these sites so you can rip them and
put the content up as your own, and I am sure other people would say
the same thing.  We build them for the community to access and use for
personal use.  If you wish to mirror a site, I highly suggest you ask
first instead of just ripping it.

All of this is irrespective of revenue streams or ads or anything
else.  Most of us in the community pay for our servers and connections
out of our own pockets so even presenting that as an argument to the
community is mute point. Even for those who have no revenue stream
attached, they should still be respected and contacted for usage.
(Oh and not posting a URL or name all over an item does not make it
any less copyrighted or owned by someone.  Usage of content or
graphics still requires permission unless otherwise noted to the
contrary. )

I don't know you and I don't care to know you but I would say that
calling this outright lies is ridiculous since we have all the email
trails to prove it.  I also don't care if you try to say I am the only
one who said anything negative, as we know that is not true.   You
mention 7800 hits.  That is less than one hour for most people's sites
that you have ripped off and you are not going to get anywhere by
doing that.  There are still plenty of projects out there that are
original that you could do instead of taking other people's stuff and
announcing that it is free to the public or "Public Domain".  Free to
download or "Freeware" does not equal Free to distribute or "Public
Domain".  Freeware is still copyrighted and as such, distribution is
usually restricted by the copyright owners as is their right.  If you
need ideas on original projects, just ask, we have about 3 dozen in
the back ground right now waiting to be done.

In spite of your removing the CA stuff and other items as requested,
you have been asked specifically to remove other materials and have
yet to comply with said removal requests in several cases.   Although
I may be the only one speaking up here, I constantly receive emails
from the other parties whose stuff you have ripped and they quite
frankly are peeved royally.   However, unlike me, they are not willing
to engage in a protracted debate on this subject, and quite frankly, I
cant say I blame them.

As I said before, get with the program and do something original if
you want to take part in the community.