Issues that Need Addressed

[Scott Baret]

I feel there are a few things on this board that need addressed:

1. From what I see in the conversations on here, there is a lot of file sharing going on behind the scenes. Much of this is explicitly stated in forum messages. While the lawful distribution of freeware and unregistered shareware is and should be encouraged, the fact remains that many of the items here are being shared illegally. These include OS discs that shipped with Macs (which are OEM discs and bound to one particular machine) in particular.

2. There is still linkage to sites that distribute material illegally throughout this site. I feel as if this should be removed and any post that links to illegal material should be removed. We already remove spam posts and any link posted that may lead to morally/ethically/legally questionable material of other sorts and I feel the same rules should be in effect for websites offering software that has not been released into the public domain by the original copyright holder. The justification that "everybody's doing it" or that "the copyright holder doesn't care" is just like saying any other law is fair. While one can dispute the actual damages involved in infringement, the fact remains that copyright infringement is illegal in, to my knowledge, every country we have represented on this forum.

3. Just thought I'd point out that we are currently at 988 members. The 1000 member mark is within reach!

 

[paws]

You're incredibly boring.

 

[System7]

...Those are not real issues. Do you really feel that apple cares that you shared a copy of System 7.6? no.

The fact is- Its HARD to find Classic Software.

 

[Unknown_K]

I try to get legit copies of all the vintage software I use (have a nice library for the Mac among other systems). Having said that I don't realy care about pirating old, unsupported, hasn't been sold for years software.

People should probably tone down the posts about sharing anything still supported, and not publish ftp/web/hotline info for "archive" sites so openly.

The laws were made for a reason, to keep people from profiting from anothers hard work for a specific period of time after which the copyrighted material is public domain. Some people have paid money to make the copyright last forever and never become public domain, I don't believe that was the intent of the law as first put down. If anyone got busted for trading OS 7.1 and it actually went to trial I think the jury would probably aquit the offender even if they broke the law (a jury can do that if they feel it was unjust to prosecute).

 

[II2II]

I'm not a huge fan of pirating software, even vintage software. But the sad fact is that these forums would fade into oblivion if a heavy-handed approach was taken. Fewer people would be interested in coming here because very few people would have the software to play with, and even fewer people would be able to try out the software that other people are talking about. That takes away a lot of the fun and most of the reason to chat.

Of course open discussion of piracy should be discouraged, but there is very little that we can do about the less open stuff if we want this place to continue to exist. And, of course, we can live up to our own standards as well. Those of us who don't like piracy simply don't pirate.

 

[Dog Cow]

The laws were made for a reason, to keep people from profiting from anothers hard work for a specific period of time after which the copyrighted material is public domain.

Most "pirates" of vintage software are NOT making a profit, and likewise, the original author(s) or companies aren't, either.

Some people have paid money to make the copyright last forever and never become public domain, I don't believe that was the intent of the law as first put down.

Copyright absolutely does NOT last forever. Read the law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html

Yes, it can be extended for 67 years, but not forever.

 

[II2II]

Most "pirates" of vintage software are NOT making a profit, and likewise, the original author(s) or companies aren't, either.

Copyright has purposes other than profit. Some people do not want their work disseminated, or only want it distributed under particular terms.

Copyright absolutely does NOT last forever. Read the law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html

Technically, you're correct. But in practice, Unknown_K is correct. At the rate that things are going, copyright law is being extended more quickly than some things are falling out of copyright protection. Usually, big "content" pays big dollars to lobby to extend copyright law in order to protect their own interests -- which is why we see this happening. For example, a law up in Canada is called the "Lucy Maud Montgomery" law because her estate was lobbying for it. The U.S. has seen similar lobbying and even more extreme laws in this matter.

 

[Dog Cow]

Usually, big "content" pays big dollars to lobby to extend copyright law in order to protect their own interests -- which is why we see this happening. For example, a law up in Canada is called the "Lucy Maud Montgomery" law because her estate was lobbying for it. The U.S. has seen similar lobbying and even more extreme laws in this matter.

And whose fault is that? It's the ignorant citizens who keep electing these pigs to office.

 

[Scott Baret]

Copyright has purposes other than profit. Some people do not want their work disseminated, or only want it distributed under particular terms.

This is absolutely correct. I have had to issue "cease and desist letters" (albeit informal ones done without a lawyer; they were typed by myself) to a few online users who have attempted to post my work without permission. Some of this work was uncredited and the works that were credited were often drafts that I may not be selling for profit now but may choose to at a later point in time.

Likewise, some software developers may be planning to update or re-release a work at a later date. Consider Nintendo, for example, who has created a "virtual console" on the Wii with games going back 23 years that have been released for new generations to enjoy. Nintendo has also updated some classic games and re-released them (such as when Super Mario Bros. 3 was released for Game Boy with new graphics and sound). There is also copyrighted code that may not be obsolete in new releases simply because it is still being used (such as a routine from, say Office 98 that may still be used in Office 2008).

Granted, there are some who have released their works (Apple in regards to System 6.0.8 and Cliff Johnson in regards to his old games are two notable examples) or wanted them to be free in the first place. However, not everyone can exist in a "utopia" world where ideas can be freely shared simply because, for some of us, there is a fear that someone will take the idea, patent it, copyright it, and sell it themselves. (This is why I do not permit my novel draft to be distributed online--someone could easily take it, put their name on it, and sell it).

 

[II2II]

And whose fault is that? It's the ignorant citizens who keep electing these pigs to office.

Unfortunately, our society (at least in Canada and the U.S.) faces sophisticated issues in a very unsophisticated democratic framework. In the Canadian framework, parties hold all of the power over the representatives, even though we do vote for representatives. So there are essentially four voices being heard on the Parliament, which is a huge concentration of power. A large portion of the voting population has no voice whatsoever, simply because they voted for a candidate who will never gain office or for a party who will never gain a seat. That leaves many people voting strategically, rather than by their conscious, which means that they are stuck voting for a mainline candidate who most closely agrees with them on the "big issues." Since copyright laws have been distorted to be "the artists" vs. "the pirates" there is no hope of it becoming one of those big issues.

Likewise, some software developers may be planning to update or re-release a work at a later date. Consider Nintendo, for example, who has created a "virtual console" on the Wii with games going back 23 years that have been released for new generations to enjoy.

The irony here is that they probably re-released old games because of the pirates, because those were the people who let companies like Nintendo know that there were people interested in the old games -- and maybe people who were interested in paying for old games.

But the other point to consider with old games is that trademarks usually get involved. Even if Nintendo was okay with a 23 year old game being pirated, they still have to protect the trademarks that are embodied by those old games in order to preserve the franchise.

Granted, there are some who have released their works (Apple in regards to System 6.0.8 and Cliff Johnson in regards to his old games are two notable examples) or wanted them to be free in the first place.

In this respect, I have to side with the open source people the most. Make it free, and give people the freedom to do what they please with it (including improve upon it). The type of free software you get from Apple is just a token gesture.

However, not everyone can exist in a "utopia" world where ideas can be freely shared simply because, for some of us, there is a fear that someone will take the idea, patent it, copyright it, and sell it themselves.

Uh, free and freedom are utopia? I've spent the past few years teaching. Some of it free in the gratis sense, and all of it free in the sense that my students are able to do whatever they wish with what I teach them. That includes taking my job, as one has! Quite often this concept of free is not one seeking after utopia, but it is one of principles: doing unto others as you would have others do unto you. I don't like it when people say that I can do X, Y, and Z with what they offer me (or with what I pay for); and I dislike it even more when they say that I can't do A, B, or C. So if I like it when others offer me a great deal of freedom, why should I take freedom away from others.

 

[paws]

(This is why I do not permit my novel draft to be distributed online--someone could easily take it, put their name on it, and sell it).

If you can't see how such a situation is fundamentally different to sharing, for curiosity or utility, software for long-dead platforms published by long-dead software companies, then boring isn't the only thing you are.

Say your work was a cure for cancer, but you suddenly came to the conclusion that people with cancer don't deserve to be cured. It would obviously (still) be immoral for someone to take your work and call it their own, but would it be immoral to make and sell bottles with red labels that said "SCOTT BARET'S MAGIC CURE FOR CANCER"?

 

[macgeek417]

*yawns loudly*

 

[Mac128]

The only point of Scott's I absolutely agree with is that links to ANY software OTHER than legal shareware, should be passed only privately between individuals. The reason for that as I have stated numerous times is that this forum is well archived by Google. Not that Apple or any other software company is actively looking to shut some poor site down that offers an obsolete driver for specific unsupported hardware, BUT Google alerts make it extremely easy for a company to police copyright violations.

I bring this up, not because I "am boring", but because I don't want to see the party end. I personally consider much of this old software "abandon ware" and I have some well supported arguments for the continued use of much of it. It is invaluable to have it available to those of us who support old platforms and without it, THIS FORUM WOULD NOT EXIST. It is a catch 22 which each individual must decide how to handle. I do not condone the sharing of ANY software currently supported or offered for sale by its authors.

One observation: Copyright law must be enforced. There is a statute of limitations on any claim of copyright infringement. Anybody remember Xerox being laughed out of court in the early 90's because they waited until Apple went after Microsoft to sue for the theft of the GUI. This is why a company has to police ANY MAJOR violations of copyright. However, if it is done quietly, Apple can claim they had no knowledge of it and therefore has the right to re-assert their copyright at any date. If Apple does not protect their copyrights, there are legal arguments that protect those who otherwise trade on it. That is the whole basis of real property eminent domain claims.

 

[joshc]

Is anyone thinking of this logically? In ordinary cases, this would be a valid issue, but in this case, no. The majority of software shared on this website is more than 10 years old. Not only that, most of the companies are long gone. In the case of things which are still copyrighted, buying a legit copy does not benefit the original author/company. It will already have been through several hands before then. This argument is like saying "Apple is losing profit because someone pirated System 7.6" - absolute nonsense. And also, how do we stop it? Ban the members that post links? Delete all the topics with links to non-copyrighted material? That would go down well...Not. Trying to be a control freak on a forum makes you look like an ass.

 

[Mac128]

And also, how do we stop it? Ban the members that post links? Delete all the topics with links to non-copyrighted material? That would go down well...Not.

More importantly, it is NOT the responsibility of this forum to police another company's copyrights. Simply listing a link is not actionable in any way. It's no different than a news station reporting about a tabloid making a libelous claim for which they are being sued. The reporting station is not actionable under any circumstances. And you realize posting a link to almost any unoriginal YouTube content is no different. YouTube is the biggest collection of copyright violations in the universe. And Apple even officially endorses YouTube. If someone has a moral objection they can either turn the tide of the majority of members to their viewpoint (and implement draconian rules) or abstain from clicking. Frankly, we owe our entire community to these others who do risk legal action in posting this software. Further, what people do privately, whether stated explicitly here or not is none of this forum's business. There is no law against "intent to violate copyright", only the actual infringement.

Frankly, let he who is without ONE piece of illegally copied software in his collection throw the first stone.

But I do say again, "The better part of valour is discretion".

Just for the record, lets review the forum rules:

Please obey the lawAny topics that are discussing matters that are legally or morally suspect, and that might get the poster or the forum in trouble will be locked. The last thing we want is a lawsuit against us because someone was discussing how to pirate the latest version of , how to hack the FBI, etc. We relax the rules for software considered "abandonware" (see below), but will still lock or remove topics at the request of the author or publisher. The 68kMLA will never condone software piracy.

Abandonware

We consider software that is no longer under development by it's authors, and that support is no longer given for, as "abandonware". As time goes on, the majority of software for older Macs will fall into this category. Fundamentally, the only way of getting much of this software is "illegal", however we allow discussion of sharing of older software for the greater good. However, we reserve the right to lock or remove any topic at the request of the author or publisher.

I think it's pretty clear what the forum's position on this is and links to such software is a perfectly acceptable way of discussing it and users offering to assist each other is well within the scope of this website.

 

[Dan 7.1]

"SCOTT BARET'S MAGIC CURE FOR CANCER"?

Patent Pending. Pay the man or be prepared to serve in government.

 

[Temetka]

I have to agree with Mac128K.

I too do not want the party to end.

Sheehs people. Here's a new term:

Keep it on the downlow.

Meaning: Shut up about it, or trouble will follow.