Steven Lichter wrote:
John B. Matthews wrote:
In article <WLdZe.2615$G64.250@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com> wrote:
Zorin the Lynx wrote:
Great Hierophant wrote:
[...]
This, by the way, is why I get so annoyed when folks whine about
Asimov and piracy; I think letting this software languish and
become lost to history is a much greater crime than pirating
software that is no longer commercially viable and not distributed
by its authors.
-Z
Some authors don't want their works distributed in this way and we
all have to respect that. Even if they are lost, the person who
wrote the program aor has the rights has the final say.
Not entirely. Each party to a copyright matter has the rights and
obligations specified in Title 17 of the USC and elsewhere. For
example, �117 imposes limitations on the author's exclusive rights
over computer programs.
The legalities of fair use preservation by individuals and libraries
are discussed here:
<http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2003_11_hirtle.html>
In particular, "[Users] may also bypass access control mechanisms in
computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have
become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a
condition of access."
We may note that Apple Computer assiduously refers to the Apple II
line of computers in terms suggesting that the series is obsolete.
If they did not then it would turn the net into hell and then we
would have the Feds and others trying to regulate, and all the sites
would go down. Just look at what has happened to music sites that
allowed user to user D/L's.
IANAL.
Then how do you explain publishers that are still supporting the Apple
II by writing programs, that gives you the right to that persons
programs and use them without compensation or without their
permission? If the program has been abandoned and is not being
supported in any way, then maybe. I hold the rights to the Apple II
BBS program GBBS, right now it is not being sold, but as I have had
time I'm updating it to work with the Y2k problems it had as well as
updating it to be able to work over the Internet. I may not be
selling it, but I am working on the program and still own the rights,
with by the way, I paid a lot more then it was worth at the time to
save it because Lance was going to dump it. I have found a few sits
where it was up and had it removed. But I have not done anything to a
few systems that are up which don't seem to have bought it, that does
not mean I can't, the law does allow me and as a member of the
Software Publishers Association, could have them take action against
anyone using or distributing the program.
It's important to understand your own motivations for controlling
the distribution of the software to which you own the rights.
Is your objective to preserve the software and keep it legitimately
available to interested parties?
Or is your objective to obtain some commercial advantage by
controlling it?
The default position of many rights owners, consciously or
unconsciously, is commercial advantage. Most have not ever
given serious thought to preservation.
While the rights owner has a legitimate interest in his or her
commercial advantage, the public has a legitimate interest in
the preservation of artifacts for research and the historical
record.
One right does not "trump" the other--they must be balanced in
their exercise.
It is clear, however, that as a work becomes progressively less
"useful", the potential commercial advantage wanes and the balance
tips toward preservation as the greater value.
Perservation by itself does not directly address the issue of
distribution, except that the interests of preservation are best
served by multiple, physically distributed copies, which implies
at least some sort of distribution.
I have frequently expressed my opinion that anyone whose business
plan involves making a return on investment from selling goods or
services to today's Apple II community is likely to be disappointed.
They would be much more likely to succeed doing something else with
their skills and capital.
Still, there is no shortage of hope, and there will continue to be
people who entertain the expectation of financial reward from their
Apple II pursuits.
But the vast majority (still a very small number) of people who are
offering Apple II-related goods or services today are doing so out
of a desire to acknowledge the contribution that the platform has
made to many lives, or, as we frequently say, "as a labor of love".
It would be a serious error to use passive rights ownership as an
argument to allow countless creative (and occasionally useful) works
to perish, yet that is the default course some would keep us on.
When the last person who is a conscious owner of rights to Apple II
software dies, then the last opportunity will have passed to acquire
or release those rights according to the letter of the law. This is
not a theoretical concern, as many have already died, with their
heirs unaware of whatever (commercially worthless) rights they held.
In this environment, making the holders of rights they intend to
exercise stand up and be counted, and defaulting to assumed consent,
makes much sense. To do otherwise is to abandon the majority of
Apple II software to its demise.
And even in the case where the owner asserts his/her rights, with the
intent of taking them to their grave, they may be overridden by the
public's right to preserve historical artifacts.
-michael
Music synthesis for 8-bit Apple II's!
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it is seriously underused."