[Coco] [Color Computer] Ira's Archive (trs-80.com) Available For Download

[Derek]

Couple of points of clarification.

When I saw that Ira had removed the files from his site I asked Ira's
permission to share the DVD's  and when it was granted I created the
initial torrent. Hex Star downloaded the torrent and then posted it on
his KDX server.

As far as I can tell the KDX clinet is free to use. I have been
uploading & downloading without having to pay any user fee or any
adware,spyware type activity from the client software.

What would hearing from Ira do? He compiled the files but he is not
the owner of them. I believe he wants to be left alone about this
whole thing.

I can see why Ira took down the files now. All this bullshit when all
I was trying to do was make sure that the TRS-80 archives were
preserved and tried to get them to as many people who wanted them as
possible. 


--- In ColorComputer at yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <bathory at ...> wrote:
>
> (I've posted this at the maltedmedia list, but wanted to duplicate
> here, since I believe the lists are only connected in one direction.)
> 
> At 01:37 PM 6/22/2007 -0000, Derek wrote:
> 
> >I am at a loss on a couple of points here. From what you message says
> >you think it's ok to get the files from IRA's site but not ok for
> >someone to distribute the EXACT same files in a different way?
> 
> [...]
> 
> As the maltedmedia list owner and, as an author and composer and
> publisher, with substantial experience in copyright over the years,
> let me say that we shouldn't get too worked up over this. The
> preservation of materials is a valuable task a now-oriented digital
> culture all too often ignores. And please let's chill on the lawyer
stuff.
> 
> Having said that, let me also make a few points, both about the
> process and about the individual.
> 
> As to the material:
> 
> 1. Copyright is a grant to the owner to control that distribution you
> mention, including distributing the 'exact same files in a different
> way.' Please read the US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 106. It's
> easy reading:
>
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html>
> 
> 2. In this case, the files are locked behind a pay-per-access method.
> I don't know who sells the $30 software, but there is monetary gain
> (even secondary) from providing the copyrighted material. This is a
> position I'd never want to put myself in, that's for sure!
> 
> 3. No lawyer is needed for a DMCA takedown notice. Takedown notices
> are repulsive to me, but the option is there as temporary if
> pre-emptive relief for copyright owners (you can read the whole thing
> at http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi):
> ======
> In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a
> service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly
> infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice
> to the service provider with the following information:
> * The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party
> [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
> * The infringing materials and their Internet location
> [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information
> location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the
> infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
> * Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works
> [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
> * A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there
> is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of
> [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
> * A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of
> perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf
> of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
> Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances
> where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself,
> it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the
> material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service
> provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly
> infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require
> notification after the material is removed.
> =====
> 
> As to the individual:
> 
> 1. Hex Star tried to join the maltedmedia list under a pseudonym,
> which I do not allow in order to prevent spammers from joining the
> list and harvesting the names and addresses. Because a real name is
> always asked for, someone trying to join without one gets my
> attention. He may have made up a name (which list members can view on
> the list pages in the header of this message), but it doesn't matter.
> Those who respond to the rejection notices with names means there are
> also 'real' emails and they then become members of the list. He did so
> and has been a responsible list member.
> 
> 2. Hex Star's willingness to find the material despite its withdrawal
> and then create a Torrent file shows either broad indiscretion or
> deliberate violation. I prefer to believe the former. I don't believe
> that, even with a $30 access fee hanging in the air, there is a desire
> to prey on and make a profit from enthusiastic user groups in the
> guise of preserving historical materials.
> 
> Can we hear from Ira directly, please?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dennis
>