On 06/07/2016 12:27, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Dilwyn Jones wrote:
This is the argument for Abandonware. Yet our copyright laws in the UK
(whatever individual opinions might be) are clear enough as to what we can
and can't do, and our chances of being prosecuted are high enough. Rich
trained as a solicitor, he should know.
The traffic laws are also clear enough to me, still I'm occasionally
prone to a parking violation.
Hosting old software is more problematic than parking on a double yellow
line (sorry not sure what the equivalent is in Germany).
The danger is that if the copyright holder does not like it, then both
you and the hosting company can be fined or imprisoned (some governments
bring the action on behalf of the copyright holders, so it is not a
question of each copyright holder bringing a separate court action). As
a result hosting companies are also very jumpy about copyright
infringement and soon disable access to websites where it is flaunted.
As I have said in posts elsewhere, if someone wants to take the risk and
set up a repository, that is fine, but I will not be a part of illegal
file sharing (which is what it amounts to) and cannot take the risk of
losing my websites and being prosecuted for breach of international
copyright.
More the issue is the reaction of people when a copyright contacts them
to have software withdrawn - to date, I have been attacked because it
must be my fault for asking for the software to be taken down. Some of
the QL copyrights are actually still linked to trading companies, and
may have rights issues of their own (such as the Metacomco compilers).
However, just ignoring the copyright holders and not bothering to
approach them, is more likely to anger them and see less software
released as freeware than being pro-active and asking for permission.
Once contact has been made with authors/copyright holders, Rich generally
passes on software to me to make public unless the author forbids it - the
ones that get published are the choice of the copyright holder. By and
large, you don't hear of just how many QL programs Rich has secured
permission to pass on to me to make available, many times what few he
re-publishes. But people rarely credit him for that side of his work.
People rarely credit anything these days, perhaps there are simply too
few people left to give credit? And the few that might come our way
are actively discouraged because much of the software is still
commercial.
It has been left to me up to now to approach copyright holders. The
more people that approach them, the better, as that is more likely to
get more of the software re-released as freeware. However, no-one else
is willing to do this.
Could I ask what your approach would be if you found (before QPC2 was
made freeware), sites who just offer free downloads of QPC2, QPCPrint
etc? Would you have been happy and let them do it whilst you were
continuing to sell the programs yourself?
The whole preservation thing has revolved around trying to keep copies of as
many QL softwares as possible ready for the day when the authors take the
same attitude as you (it can't be released unless there are copies - most of
the authors Rich managed to contact had no copies of their own software to
offer us).
And you really think that people who didn't even care enough to keep a
copy of their OWN software would try prosecuting somebody for putting
it online?
Unfortunately yes - as has been shown by someone reporting illegal file
sharing to the hosting company of one of the sites concerned.... As I
say, it is not necessarily a case of the copyright holder trying to
bring a court case - certainly the US and Spanish governments will issue
take down notices and prosecutions on behalf of copyright holders.
If the authors persist in trying to keep programs commercial,
however futile it might seem, that's their right I suppose, but without the
huge effort people like Rich have put in there would be no copies of the
software to make available anyway.
The thing hit the fan when somebody send take-down notices to a site
that has actually put copies for everybody to use on the internet. So
we're left with less copies than there were before.
But the software was mainly software which could readily still be
purchased online from myself and Jochen.
Rather than concentrating on trying to increase the range of free QL
software available, it tends to be the same 10 titles or so which were
published by a similar site in 2014 (and subsequently removed at the
request of the copyright holders).
If people stopped moaning and started working together to compile a
proper QL repository, similar to World of Spectrum say, then great.
Unfortunately, in the 9 years since I decided off my own back to set up
the QL Wiki and start preserving what QL software I could, the number of
people who have shown willing to help take the project any further
forward can be counted on one hand.
As I have said, I will now stand back - if people want the software
which I have managed to preserve, then send me authorisation from the
owner (or show that it was already public domain / freeware through an
old PD catalogue) and I will forward it to Dilwyn.
If you want to go some other way and do file sharing of copyright
material, then unfortunately, I will not be part of this.
--
Rich Mellor
RWAP Services
Specialist Enuuk Auction Programming Services
www.rwapservices.co.uk
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
