[Coco] ROM Copyrights... copyrights in general...

[James Ross]

Wayne Campbell wrote:
> I understood your point, Dennis. 

Wayne, I think you meant me, James? 

> I am merely taking the position of better
> safe than sorry. If we get permission from Microsoft to use/distribute the
> coco/dragon ROMs, then there definitely will be no backlash, and no risk.

Absolutely... no issues w/ that. 

I wish you and and Barry good luck in obtaining permission. 

James

________________________________________
From: Coco <coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com> on behalf of Wayne Campbell <asa.rand at gmail.com>

I understood your point, Dennis. I am merely taking the position of better
safe than sorry. If we get permission from Microsoft to use/distribute the
coco/dragon ROMs, then there definitely will be no backlash, and no risk.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:02 PM, James Ross <jrosslist at outlook.com> wrote:

> I think you might have misunderstood my point or I didn’t give enough
> specific details to what my specific point was.
>
> I inartfully made the counter-argument to “there is something to fear” for
> either downloading or redistributing specifically original CoCo 1, 2, 3
> built in ROMS. This is what the original thread was about and some comments
> where made insinuating there is a risk involved.   My argument is there is
> NO risk.  IM(not so)HO ... :)
>
> Perhaps the thread had moved on to “Copyright in general …"  part of the
> subject and I had not noticed that.
>
> I am not against Copyright law. And I respect the right authors have to
> make as much money as they possibly can through their work. Amen to that. I
> am working on my own proprietary software that I plan on using those same
> laws for protection.
>
> I am not advocating for Piracy, even though I treated the subject rather
> flippantly, by the examples I was giving.
>
> I even agree that an emulator should not be distributed w/ the ROMS unless
> they have been officially released to the public. However, more out of
> sticking w/ an accepted norm and/or respect, than legality or fear
> retribution or of doing something wrong.
>
> The example you use w/ the lady getting sued for $220,000 for 24 songs …
> is IMO, comparing apples to oranges too.  Songs from any time-frame that
> the law covers can still make a profit for the original owner / author /
> inheritor … CDROM re-re-releases / vinyl is cool again / $1 per song / .05c
> per play etc... many ways.
>
> The CoCo ROMS are not making anyone a profit. There is no loss.
>
> In that case the final judgement is/was seriously wrong. Even if our court
> system has historically been one of the best in the world, in many cases it
> often fails miserably, and that is definitely one of them. Somehow they
> convinced a jury she did that much damage to the music company. Had I been
> a juror it would have been a hung jury. You don’t pick out one person and
> make an example of them. That was all about sending a message of fear. They
> even admit in the rest of the article that approach did not / was not
> working for them, and if the article is right, they no longer do that (go
> after individuals).
>
> Again, I am NOT advocating for Piracy. If it’s still for sale, you should
> buy it.  Pictures, articles, artistic works, stuff like that (w/ a
> copyright notice) that are on display, even if not for sale , should not be
> copied or re-used as your own.
>
> But as for software that is no longer for sale and no one is making a
> profit on it, as far as I am concerned it's fair-use / fair-game. Someone
> would have to point me to successful lawsuit where the software product was
> truly discontinued / abandoned and someone was sued / punished for
> distribution or illegal d/l & use.
>
> In that case I don’t believe it’s unethical / wrong / or stealing to
> obtain a copy or give away copies of it, even if it is against the law.
> It's like driving over the speed-limit. It's breaking the law to do it.
> But how many people have a conscious issue w/ it?  But that is just my
> opinion. YMMV
>
> Dennis wrote:
> > As for my own old computer articles and software, I have specifically
> placed
> > those in the public domain.
>
> That is great!! I am sure it's greatly appreciated. Too bad most companies
> / authors can't be bothered to do that.
>
> James