Re: Asimov & *LACK* of respecting programmers choices

["Kevin" <kkralian@aros.net>]

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.

Nathan wrote:

> >> doesn't give a damn. I have the right to do what I want with my
> >> programs. Some I release as Freeware, others get sold. That's a nice
> >> little *choice* I and/or whomever funded the software get to

I wrote:
> >Read what you just wrote. You're completely right- It's a choice that
the
> >author/company gets to make.

Nathan responded:
>    Bingo. Give the man a cookie. Problem is, most of the stuff on
> Asimov was commercial. In other words, the author/company copyrighted
> it, and chose to sell it. In the absence of any new information on
> choices, we assume that their choice remains the same, none of this
> "we feel that all programmers would want their stuff copied" garbage.
> Do not assume anything about anyone just by the way you feel; if you
> want to know how someone feels about something, then ask them. Is that
> so hard to grasp?

First of all, Nathan, congratulations on a calm, sensible message. It's
nice to see some thought, content, and logic in it for a change. Much
better than the typical doomsday messages / threats / screaming I've seen
in the past. Hopefully you will continue in this manner...

Yes, the software was (is) copyrighted. For a reason- It was sold
commercially; people were making money on it. But a lot has changed over
the last 12 years. It is no longer sold, no one is making money on it. The
reasons for the copyright no longer exist, and, as can be seen, the
companies/people involved are no longer enforcing them. I am assuming the
programmers feel this way because I (as a programmer) do, all my co-workers
do, and because I firmly believe that almost all programmers do to. I'm not
going to keep saying why; Either you understand it and agree with it or you
don't. You are  a game programmer, you work for a game developer. But
perhaps you don't agree or haven't been in the industry long enough (after
all, it's your first year in the industry). But go ahead, ask you
co-workers. Ask them what they would do/think if they saw a game they made
10 years ago (which isn't sold anymore) being copied today. Would they try
and stop it? Or would they be flattered and let it go? I already know the
answer. 

Sorry. I'm going to assume this is the way it is. I'm not going to try and
track down the 10,000 authors to "ask them". On the author hand, you are
assuming the opposite (and choosing to ignore that the reasons for the
original copyright are gone). I'm sure you won't ask the 10,000 authors
either.

And the attempts to get a hold of all the copyright holders to release
their games into PD has been tried before (by the apple community). This
never worked out very well. Most authors do not own the copyright- the
publisher does too. And publishers will not release the copyrights, because
the copyright isn't a method of simply preventing a game from being copied,
but more importantly protects the game's title, art, music, rights to a
sequel, etc. And that is a protection a company will not (and should not)
give up. If they did, what would prevent me from making "Rescue Raiders
II", or making money by selling their games in an "Apple Action Pack"?
Especially if the company may choose to do this later. No company is going
to spend a dime having their lawyers figure out how to do this- because
they won't gain anything. So they do nothing. And remain passive when
people copy it (they still have the copyright, own the title, the name,
etc). 

So, it's not practicle to get the copyrights released. I wouldn't give up
the copyright on something I wrote 10 years ago. What we want is permission
to copy it. And because nobody has said no, it am assuming we have it.
(okay, a few people said no, and their programs have been removed).

>    Am I "controlling" asimov? No, I'm trying to respect the last
> stated wishes of the author/company involved.

No, you are trying to make everybody else respect your interpretation of
these wishes. Most of us don't agree with your interpretation (that the
copyright still makes sense, etc. see above). If YOU wanted to respect
that, YOU wouldn't copy the programs. But thats not what you are doing
here...

> If you truly feel that
> they'd be receptive to people copying them, then ask them *FIRST*.

As I said above, if you feel they aren't, why don't YOU ask them? Be
practical. 

> pirating. Thus, Asimov is guilty on moral and legal grounds.

Guilty?! On Moral grounds? There's no right or wrong. Morals and whats
right and wrong vary from person to person (ie: abortion, sexuality,
religion, etc). They may be guilty in your eyes, but have the
open-mindedness to acknowledge that others don't see the situation the same
way as you. And to them, they are innocent. You can't convince somebody
otherwise. On legal grounds, technically, yes. But the situation is unusual
and copyright law was never made to cover such a situation. (would you like
a list of laws that a routinely technically broken because they don't
apply/make sense in certain situations?). Sometimes common sense and
judgement are enough to realize a law doesn't make sense. Sometimes a law
isn't protecting anybody/anything anymore. And this happens... 

-Kevin Kralian