[Coco] mikeyterm (software copyrights)

[Jim Hickle]

--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Joel Ewy <jcewy at swbell.net> wrote:

> From: Joel Ewy <jcewy at swbell.net>
> Subject: Re: [Coco] mikeyterm (software copyrights)
> To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 12:47 PM
> Chuck Youse wrote:
> > No offense to anyone who's posting on this thread,
> but can we shut up
> > about copyrights already?  We all know the score by
> this point, some
> > shit is copyrighted, some isn't, it's unclear
> at times what is, and if
> > the author would even care or not, blah blah blah.
> >
> > Running around in friggin' circles..
> >
> > C.
> >
> >   
> 
> I agree.  Copyright permits the author to dictate the terms
> under which
> a work is copied.  My (admittedly now hazy) recollection is
> that
> Mikeyterm was copyrighted and distributed as shareware,
> which means it
> is freely distributable, but with continued use there was
> the
> expectation of a contribution to the author.  Actually
> doing so was left
> up to the individual conscience of the user.  Sometimes
> shareware
> programs were licensed by distributors who would, in
> effect, collect the
> shareware fee from customers and pay the author, minus a
> distribution
> fee.  Whatever.
> 
> I think most of us can agree on these general points:
> 
> 1.  Copyright law still stands.  The author holds the
> copyright to
> anything he or she writes and does not expressly place in
> the Public
> Domain.  Copyright lasts, in effect, forever.  Not quite in
> theory, but
> for practical purposes that might as well be the case.
> 
> 2.  Copyright gives you the right to sue if you think
> you've been
> infringed upon.
> 
> 3.  The common practice is first to give warnings and then
> to take legal
> action.
> 
> 4.  Lawyers and court cases cost money.  The likelihood of
> anybody
> actually suing anyone else over 20 year old software or
> documentation
> for a computer that hasn't been made since 1991 is slim
> to say the
> least.  Could happen.  Isn't likely.  Probably
> wouldn't be worth the
> effort.  Big magazine publishing companies may have a
> lawsuit reflex,
> and like Chrysler, may take a while to understand that it
> isn't worth
> their time.  It's probably not helpful to taunt them.
> 
> 5.  Many of the individual authors of old CoCo software
> don't mind if
> people trade copies of their programs at this point and
> some may even be
> grateful that their work has been preserved.  Paladin's
> Legacy is a good
> recent case in point.  Some software publishers and authors
> have given
> their express permission for their old products to be
> distributed as
> freeware.  The games you can download from L. Curtis
> Boyle's web site
> are examples of this.
> 
> 6.  There are without a doubt technical copyright
> violations out there
> on publicly accessible servers.  The ones I have seen are
> all programs
> that  haven't been available for sale for many years,
> and aren't
> compromising anybody's real revenue stream.  Copyright
> violations? 
> Probably.  Actually causing any harm?  Probably not. 
> Possibly doing
> some good in terms of preserving a historical record, and
> maintaining
> some level of interest in the CoCo which might in itself
> possibly
> preserve the potential for some tiny, miniscule marketplace
> for future
> programs?  I think so.
> 
> 7.  We ought to be sensitive to the copyright holders'
> legitimate
> interests.  Just because we think someone ought to let us
> copy their
> program a couple decades down the road doesn't give us
> the right to do
> so against their wishes.  If authors show up and request
> removal of
> their work from public ftp sites, I think that should be
> respected.
> 
> 8.  Violating the copyrights of authors who are currently
> selling
> software in the CoCo market should be considered not only
> illegal, but
> very bad form indeed.  I have not seen rogue copies of
> Drivewire or
> 'Mary and the Butterflies' on the public servers,
> and I would think that
> their authors would be rightly very angry if this were to
> happen.  But
> the standards of the CoCo community seem to be such that
> this isn't
> happening, at least insofar as I am aware.
> 
> 9.  Awareness of copyright law and licensing issues has
> increased since
> the time many CoCo programs were originally written and
> distributed. 
> Back in the day, the term 'Public Domain' was used
> very loosely, for
> example.  You would often see contradictory statements like
> "I release
> this program into the Public Domain for non-commercial use
> only."  Well,
> if it is truly in the public domain, then anybody can do
> whatever they
> want with it, commercial or no.  Now we have all kinds of
> much more
> sophisticated licensing options, like the GPL, different
> versions of
> Creative Commons licensing, and other forms of Open Source,
> as well as
> closed source freeware and good old fashioned commercial
> licenses.  If
> you have a disk image with a half-dozen BASIC programs,
> very likely even
> they aren't properly, explicitly in the Public Domain,
> and copyright
> technically remains with the original author, whoever that
> was.  The
> likely intent was that they be shared with all for any
> purpose, though
> it may be impossible to tell for certain, because such
> documentation was
> not the rule in those days.  Old commercial games that have
> a copyright
> notice on the splash screen clearly had a different intent.
>  At this
> point, I think the community norm seems to be that quiet
> and respectful
> sharing of these programs hurts no one and strengthens the
> community
> unless it is learned that the author does not approve. 
> Since even many
> of the programs that weren't originally commercial are
> ambiguously
> licensed at the best, and their original authors likely
> completely
> unidentifiable and unreachable, there would be very very
> little CoCo
> software publicly available if we adhered to the strictest
> interpretation of copyright law. 
> 
> 10.  Therefore I think we must recognize the imperfection
> of copyright
> law, and its understanding and use in the past and today,
> and strike a
> pragmatic balance between the rights of the original
> authors, the past
> and present users, and the community, and leave the final
> decision to
> the individual.  If you were driving the speed limit and
> somebody passed
> you going just a little faster, you wouldn't likely
> call the police.  It
> wouldn't do any good, they really aren't doing any
> harm, and you've
> almost certainly been there and done that yourself.  The
> police might
> not even pull them over if they were there to see it.  If
> somebody
> passes you on the shoulder going 40MPH faster than the
> general flow of
> traffic, you might be more tempted to call in their tag
> number. 
> (Probably still wouldn't do any good, but their driving
> is not just
> violating the letter of the law, but is arguably posing a
> real hazard.) 
> Sharing copies of quarter-century-old commercial games: 
> going 75 in a
> 70MPH zone.  Giving away programs Roger Taylor or Cloud 9
> are currently
> selling:  reckless endangerment.  Both technically illegal.
>  One
> commonly accepted practice, the other something we should
> all avoid and
> strongly discourage.
> 
> 11.  Let's quit talking about this soon.
> 
> JCE
> 

We have to quit...you used up all the words.