Re: Asimov is a _PIRATE_ site. Face the Facts

[madsci@tribeca.ios.com (Erick Dietrich)]

In article <4srk6u$b6e@blackice.winternet.com>, nathan@parka.winternet.com
(Nathan Mates) wrote:

> In article <4srf5k$jhc@news.wco.com>,
> Charles T. Turley <turley@optera.com> wrote:
> >I don't consider Asimov to be a pirate site. Thus, I intend to keep my 
> >links to the many useful things it has to offer to many computer 
> >platforms and their users, that they could never obtain - with respect 
> >to such useful and needed rarities - if Asimov were not available and 
> >known to them.
> 
>    It doesn't matter beans what you think. 

Okay, now come on, Nathan, lets be fair.  Dr Tom actually has what could
be called a worthwhile point here. Lets not be contarry by default.

>It's the eys of the courts
> that count for anything, and their decision making process is simple
> enough that we can follow it:
> 
> 1) Asimov has _some_ legitimate software, especially in the code for
> emulators on other systems. The authors gave permission to pass the
> software around at will. [We're taking the emulator programs, not ROM
> images.]
> 
> 2) Asimov has _lots_ of software posted for which it has _NO_ license.
> Specifically, I have seen no license from Apple (and Microsoft, which
> helped in Applesoft Basic) saying that the ROM images posted there are
> in any way allowed. Further, for most to all of the software, there is
> no similar notice from the publisher stating that the software has
> moved to the public domain or a license has been granted to asimov to
> distribute it.
> 
> 3) As a signatory to the Berne Convention, copyrights on software, etc
> last for the author's lifetime _plus_ 50 years. As no titles are
> available from 1946 or before for the Apple II, _no_ copyrights have
> expired.
> 
> 4) Therefore, as the games, ROM images, and the like are still
> copyrighted, thery are _NOT_ to be distributed. Asimov is distributing
> them. Asimov is a pirate site.
> 
>    Usefulness and rarity is _NOT_ an excuse for the general public to
> be able to download pirated stuff. At best, it is a pathetic excuse to
> salve up a conscience that knows that what it's doing is wrong, but
> they have no self-control to do the right thing.
> 
>    I wish the legitimate stuff at asimov could be split off to another
> site so that people could be referred to those programs, then the rest
> could be nuked.
> 
> Nathan Mates

The problem, unfortuately, is that there are few places to actaully find
Asimov software.  I have a hundred dead 5.5 floppies, disks that I
attained by purcase or from folks who gave me the stuff in shopping bags
by the pound when they moved on from their Apples.  What good is any of
it?  The images on Asimov allow me to use that software again.  And I own
it, or I own licenses for it, so why should dead media get in the way?

Now don't get me wrong here, I am not one to pirate software.   My Macs
and PeeCees are legit, and so are my Apple ]['s, but what can you do when
there is simply no place to get a replacement disk?

What the court sees Asimov is seesm to be a bit irrelavant.  Is anyone up
for suing over a program that they marketed in 1983?  Sure, some of the
stuff there is questionable, like perhaps the ROM images and AppleWorks. 
But  personaly, if I found a bit of software I wrote 15 years ago being
posted so that people can use it, I would be flattered.  Maybe I am crazy.

The problem with Asimov is that its too visible.  Too many people know
about it, and too many times it shows up here in csa2.  The spirit of
Asimov, as I understand it, is to save people the drudgery of having to
deal with serial connections or DSK2FILE (Nice program, BTW).  Its not
there to provide people with things they never had.  Seriously, who is
going to be using the site but Apple II users?  Do you really use your
emulators THAT much?  And do lots of Windows and Mac users who have never
used an Apple II go out looking for emulators? And do you really suppose
that the millions of folks who go out and make first time purchases of
Apple II systems are using Asimov to steal software?  :-)

This is a difficult situation.  I don't want to seem like I condone
piracy, because I don't.  But do we follow the letter of the meaning of a
law?    I don't know.  However, I see Asimov as an asset to the Apple II
community, not as a burden to programers who deserve to make a profit for
their efforts.

The only suggestion that I have is that if a programmer sees something on
there that he or she does not want to see there, then  provisions should
be made for that piece of software to be removed from the site as soon as
possible.

Comments, arguments, but no flames, lets have an intellectual debate here,
not a war. :-)

-Erick