On 07/07/2016 12:13, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
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 ».
I agree with everything you say above. I presume you do not mean to
imply that any significant /future/ software must also be free. I
would hate to be discouraging anyone from developing or improving any
significant application or utility merely because there is an implied
and pervasive culture dictating that all QL software must be free!
Of course the chance of anyone producing something new that QLers
would still buy is remote, but
> QL forever!
is a very long time!
Per
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
