[Coco] Duplicating Copy-Protected Games (Z-89) (Was: CocoDigest, Vol 55, Issue 22) (Steve Bjork)

[cdiman7]

Andrew,
   I don't get on the list often, but I saw your comment, just a point to
consider. Don't get a copyright confused with a patent. A patent does have a
time limit, a copyright is for the lifetime of the copyright holder (last I
knew).
   And I will checkout the list now.
Karl

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew <keeper63 at cox.net>
To: <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Coco] Duplicating Copy-Protected Games (Z-89) (Was:
CocoDigest, Vol 55, Issue 22) (Steve Bjork)


> Steve,
>
> I agree with some of your points and disagree on others.
>
> I don't disagree with the concept of copyright law, an author should be
> able to secure rights to make money on his or her work for a LIMITED time.
>
> However, what we have with the current copyright situation has already
> become a perversion of what I understand the framers of the Constitution
> originally envisioned. A "limited time" does not mean "till the end of
> the universe, minus one day" (something akin to this was said by one of
> cronies involved in one such "extension" of copyright in recent memory).
> Any reasonable person's definition of "limited time" would not be this.
>
> Furthermore, it is my stance that with the case of computer software,
> the period of "limited time" should be very limited indeed - somewhere
> in the neighborhood of 10-15 years seems appropriate. In that time,
> technology (and people's needs and tastes) can easily advance to the
> point where any such software is no longer thought about or used, even
> if a platform capable of supporting it exists. For instance, would I, as
> an average consumer today, think about installing or using, say, Windows
> 3.11 for anything serious? Not likely.
>
> When it comes to hardware generations, where it is nearly impossible to
> even procure the necessary generation's CPU's (let alone all the other
> interface chipset), or even floppy drive systems - one can't say that
> full "ready to use" systems are easily available, even on Ebay - if that
> were the case, then an Altair or an IMSAI could be considered viable
> platforms for today (among two possible options).
>
> Neither is, nor is the Color Computer.
>
> Now, I can't legally disagree with the law as it is written - it is what
> it is, warts, kickbacks, and all. It is what we the people have been
> foisted, and if the common person understood (and cared a bit more) just
> what it is being given up, they would recognize just what a piece of
> legislation it currently is.
>
> I would dare say that most former authors of software for old,
> unsupported-by-thier-manufacturer computer systems understand and agree
> with this, which is why so much of this stuff is in the public domain
> now. There are obviously holdouts, such as yourself, who while they are
> well within their rights to do so, are also hindering in some small part
> the preservation of the past.
>
> It isn't that there is precedent - indeed, this is why I am so fervently
> against the way things are today. There are many arguments why current
> copyright law shouldn't be applied the same to computer software, but
> the strongest one should be the ability to learn from the past, and for
> the preservation of historical context. In the past, while many older
> systems have been preserved in a state where they will run (and no
> copies of such systems CAN be found on Ebay), software for some of them
> is virtually non-existant, and in some cases, it doesn't exist at all.
> Many of these machines lie dormant, even though given the right software
> they could run again. It is my contention that a software library of a
> given architecture should be preserved as completely as possible for
> that system as a part of its history - a computer isn't a computer
> without software for it (one could argue the inverse as well - it mainly
> stems from the idea that software is hardware virtualized, and hardware
> is software made real - re, Universal Turing Machines).
>
> We are losing a lot of our computing history, and in some cases
> knowledge (only to be "re-invented/discovered" - and then copyrighted
> AND patented!) - which could in many instances benefit today's budding
> software programmers and engineers.
>
> I think you and everyone else gets my point, so I won't belabor it any
> longer.
>
> With that said - will there ever be, Steve, a time when the community
> could purchase your software rights and release the code (or at least
> the products) to the public domain? Or do you intend to hold onto them
> until your death, and pass them on ad-infintum (ok, maybe that is
> rhetoric, but sometimes it feels this way) to your heirs? At which point
> will they ever enter public domain? Will anyone even be around to care?
> Will any system be around which could run those programs? Finally, what
> would you consider fair payment from the community for this option?
>
> These are real questions - while I can't personally purchase your
> rights, I think the community would certainly like the understanding, if
> not the opportunity, to do so.
>
> I respect you and your work, Steve, but between you and Bill Vergona (of
> CerComp fame), I sometimes wonder just why you hold on to this old code
> so dearly for so little. You certainly can't take it with you...
>
> -- Andrew L. Ayers
>     Glendale, Arizona
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco