Hi, Just my 2 cents worth.
As I understand it, Rich came under attack from some (as yet unnamed) sources because he (i) sells old programs for the QL and (ii) sent take-down notices (or was suspected of sending them) to sites that apparently hosted copyrighted files without the owners’ consent. It goes without saying that being attacked for these actions is just unacceptable. I’m alarmed, Rich, that this should cause you health problems. I believe that the echo your decision got on the list here shows that people here do support you. Except for the health problem, I’m not sure that I understand why this causes you to stop your preservation project. Surely the best strategy to adopt is to ignore the <your favorite swear word here> who bring these attacks - and go on as before ? I think, Rich, that you should publish here extracts of the offending emails or whatever form that correspondence took, together with the author’s names, so that I, for one, could be sure not to have any contact with them. The discussion now seems to center on whether all QL software should be made available for free. I agree with much of what Marcel writes, in that I also think that all of this 30+ years old software **should** be free. Like Marcel, I’m in the process of releasing my commercial programs as freeware, as and when I get around to it. However, the decision to do so is mine and nobody else’s. Likewise, the decision for others to do so with their software is theirs. Do I think that that old software should be released for free, like Marcel does ? Sure ! Would I, like Marcel, refuse to pay a cent for any old game ? Yup : if it isn’t free, I don’t even look at it. But I don’t see what’s wrong with copyright owners holding on to their property, nor with Rich trying to sell some software and make some money from it. I do not understand the mindset of people who believe that these things MUST NECESSARILY be free and if they aren’t, then the copyright owners and traders are evil, and fair game for any sort of abuse (I’m not accusing anybody on this list of thinking that way!). Is the fact that some copyright owners try to make a buck off their software in any way nefarious or detrimental to the QL scene ? In other words, do we loose users because of it ? I don’t believe so. I frankly fail to believe that someone new to the QL scene would look at it, look at the software available, think « hey that’s a game I must have » and then go away when he discovers that the game is still being sold…. As to the problem of hosting these still copyrighted files, I like Marcel’s analogy with (minor!) traffic law violations – you can choose, say, to double-park « just for a few minutes » and run the risk of getting a fine. Likewise, you can also choose to host copyrighted files and run the risk of criminal proceedings (with much higher penalties). The risk of being sued is probably minimal. The operating words being « probable » -i.e. not certain, and « minimal » i.e. not null. It is up to each of us to assess that risk and ask themselves whether they want to run it. However, as one of those darned lawyers myself, what would I tell a client if he asked me whether he should/could host copyrighted files (w/o the copyright owners’ permission, that is) ? The answer would be a clear and unequivocal « no ». QL forever! Wolfgang _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
