Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Tobias Fröschle]

What the whole thing boils down to is probably:

Do I care if someone is blocking my driveway?
Do I care if someone is blocking my neighbor's driveway?
Do I care if someone is blocking my neighbor's driveway that hasn't been used 
by them for 25 years?

In all but the first case, I don't - It's none of my business. And in the last 
case I'd find it a bit ridiculous if I did.

Tobias
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Richard Howe]

Thanks Derek

I am pleased you found it useful, and pleased you bought it from Tom (last
name Dolezal).

I remember TK Computerware as a consistent supporter and retailer of QL and
Z88 products at the time. Tom worked in Ashford, Kent but I think he moved
in the 90s. When credit card fraud began to take hold. He 'sold' a Z88 to a
fraudster who later phoned him and boasted about the fraud. Wolfgang
suggested 'some people are just evil'. Well that kind of deliberate torture
comes close. On a positive note I did get some fraudsters arrested one time,
they were under 18 apparently. Their leader had the sense to leg it but must
have had a few sleepless nights. Still, that's another story.

Best wishes
Richard Howe

-Original Message-
From: Ql-Users [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of Derek
Stewart
Sent: 09 July 2016 08:41
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation
Project

Hi Richard,

I bought a copy of Master Spy in 1989 from TK Computaware, aftwer a review
in QL Wolrd.

I must say that Master Spy was one of best QL software I have ever had. 
I am sorry for not buying it direct from you.

Regards,

Derek

On 07/07/16 16:16, Richard Howe wrote:
> Hi
>
> I don't often reply in the forum but I do watch it, and this thread 
> caught my attention.
>
> Issues:
>   1.  Integrity.
>   2.  Letting go of personal attacks by trolls, and the trolls 
> themselves.
>   3.  Copyright.
>
> 1.  Integrity.
> Those who appreciate the value of copyright do so because it is 
> 'right' to morally and financially support those who give energy to 
> projects that interest the community. Those who break copyright law 
> are ignorant of this, their minds commonly lacking respect for others. 
> Those who simply observe the law have missed the point.
>
> 2. Letting go.
> When encountering people of low integrity it is important first to 
> recognise them for the ignorant people they are, and quickly say 
> 'bye'. It's easy to forgive them because they are obviously too 
> ignorant to dig themselves out of the pit they have dug for 
> themselves. Allowing trolls space in your mind will lead to your poor 
> health as you are allowing your own ego to mull over their negative 
> words. Simply know the community is constructive, and will dismiss them
and their comments. Only trolls really engage with trolls.
> Letting go is an important healing principle.
>
> 3. Copyright.
> I would not be fussed if copies of my old QL programs were passed around.
> However, I am writing a website that uses a few original ideas in 
> them, and I 'would' be fussed if the ideas were misused and undermined 
> my current project. The law allows for 'fair use' of parts of a 
> copyright item and this is wise. Special licences can also widen the 
> availability for users while protecting essentials for the author. 
> Perhaps I should mention that thirty years ago I wrote the Spy and Master
Spy editors, Archivist, Mailfile, etc.
> Back then there were enthusiasts but few buyers, much like today. I 
> haven't sold anything QL in the last twenty years. I seem to remember 
> all the profits were ploughed back into advertising. That's the nature 
> of the game sometimes.
>
> Kind regards
> Richard Howe
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ql-Users [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of 
> Rich Mellor
> Sent: 07 July 2016 14:32
> To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
> Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software 
> Preservation Project
>
> On 07/07/2016 11:13, 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  
>> 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 no

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Derek Stewart]

Hi Richard,

I bought a copy of Master Spy in 1989 from TK Computaware, aftwer a 
review in QL Wolrd.


I must say that Master Spy was one of best QL software I have ever had. 
I am sorry for not buying it direct from you.


Regards,

Derek

On 07/07/16 16:16, Richard Howe wrote:

Hi

I don't often reply in the forum but I do watch it, and this thread caught
my attention.

Issues:
1.  Integrity.
2.  Letting go of personal attacks by trolls, and the trolls
themselves.
3.  Copyright.

1.  Integrity.
Those who appreciate the value of copyright do so because it is 'right' to
morally and financially support those who give energy to projects that
interest the community. Those who break copyright law are ignorant of this,
their minds commonly lacking respect for others. Those who simply observe
the law have missed the point.

2. Letting go.
When encountering people of low integrity it is important first to recognise
them for the ignorant people they are, and quickly say 'bye'. It's easy to
forgive them because they are obviously too ignorant to dig themselves out
of the pit they have dug for themselves. Allowing trolls space in your mind
will lead to your poor health as you are allowing your own ego to mull over
their negative words. Simply know the community is constructive, and will
dismiss them and their comments. Only trolls really engage with trolls.
Letting go is an important healing principle.

3. Copyright.
I would not be fussed if copies of my old QL programs were passed around.
However, I am writing a website that uses a few original ideas in them, and
I 'would' be fussed if the ideas were misused and undermined my current
project. The law allows for 'fair use' of parts of a copyright item and this
is wise. Special licences can also widen the availability for users while
protecting essentials for the author. Perhaps I should mention that thirty
years ago I wrote the Spy and Master Spy editors, Archivist, Mailfile, etc.
Back then there were enthusiasts but few buyers, much like today. I haven't
sold anything QL in the last twenty years. I seem to remember all the
profits were ploughed back into advertising. That's the nature of the game
sometimes.

Kind regards
Richard Howe

-Original Message-
From: Ql-Users [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of Rich
Mellor
Sent: 07 July 2016 14:32
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation
Project

On 07/07/2016 11:13, 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  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 th

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Norman Dunbar]

Whoops!

To infringe, verb. 
An infringement noun. 
Apologies.

Cheers,
Norm.


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Norman Dunbar]

Still a verb. It's an action.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

I wish I could get out of the sun! But it's too sunny and way to hot for a Jock 
like me!


Cheers,
Norm.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Richard Howe]

Thanks Wolfgang

This is off topic so this is my last email on it.

> What is the ethic behind parking spaces, that were free, being made into
paid ones with a meter?
> More on topic, what is the ethic behind copyright being extended from 50
to 70 years after Disney asked for it?

Who can pass up an opportunity to defend parking meters?

The parking meter money goes to various forms of government. The government
spends most of its budget on social services, health, and education, all
ethically driven pursuits generally in favour of the most vulnerable in
society. Most other government funding is provided to activities also
generally in the public interest, though not all.

VAT ditto.

The motivation for copyright law was ethical as it ensured writers were
reasonably recompensed for the months or years of unpaid creative effort
required before publication of works. The subsequent change to UK copyright
law was to harmonise the UK's 50 years after death with the EU's 70 years,
and coincidentally the US's 70 years. The change was more practical than
ethical. There are numerous problems in the details of copyright law but
they do not undermine the essential spirit of the law.

I am not sure of Disney's role but the US copyright period gradually
increased in six stages since the late 1700's.

Certainly laws may not be ethical, and changes to ethical laws may or may
not be ethical.

Best wishes
Richard Howe 

-Original Message-
From: Ql-Users [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of
Wolfgang Lenerz
Sent: 08 July 2016 08:39
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation
Project

Hi,

>
> Sorry. To clarify: Those who 'simply' observe the law are not 
> considering the ethics behind the law, they are just following the 
> rules. The point is to understand the ethics (the spirit of the law).

Unfortunately, there isn't always one. What is the ethic behind VAT? 
What is the ethic behind parking spaces, that were free, being made into
paid ones with a meter?
More on topic, what is the ethic behind copyright being extended from 50 to
70 years after Disney asked for it?


> I do appreciate your thought about dismissing a point of law that is 
> unethical.
>

The problem with ethics is that they are too changeable. My ethics may
include not eating pork, or going arounb with a berad or some form of
headgear, or women having less rights than men, or homosexuals being labeled
as deviant etc ad nauseam.


>> There are also people who are simply evil.
>
> In Buddhism the only sin is ignorance. Profound ignorance can result 
> in evil acts. The people themselves are not considered evil, though 
> they still get locked up.

OK, I profess my ignorance on buddhism. However, there are people who, for
example,  hurt others, fully knowing what they are doing and that they
shouldn't be doing it. To my mind, they are not ignorant to any degree.
  Sorry for going so far off topic.

Wolfgang

___
QL-Users Mailing List

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Marcel Kilgus]

> Am 08.07.2016 um 17:40 schrieb Norman Dunbar :
> 
> Infringement is what you do when you break a law, it's a verb. Copyright 
> theft is the thing, a noun. But I'm not a lawyer, so doublespeak doesn't come 
> easy! 

Infringement a verb? Norman, please get out if the sun ;-) 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement


"Nevertheless, copyright holders, industry representatives, and legislators 
have long characterized copyright infringement as piracy or theft – language 
which some U.S. courts now regard as pejorative or otherwise contentious"

Marcel

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Norman Dunbar]

No, please don't shut up. Healthy discourse is good. 

I was attempting to say that comparing copyright theft to homosexuality was 
comparing apples and oranges. One is "inbuilt" and hard to avoid, the other is 
willingly done. They are completely different to each other.


Cheers,
Norm.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Norman Dunbar]

The USA have a "way" of these things,  and always to their advantage. Much like 
the so called "special relationship " that exists between Britain and America. 
They take, we, suckers,  give. I think someone tried a similar thing as Disney, 
in the UK and effectively got told to piss off! Might even have been Cliff 
Richard, but I can't remember.

Infringement is what you do when you break a law, it's a verb. Copyright theft 
is the thing, a noun. But I'm not a lawyer, so doublespeak doesn't come easy! 

I agree that the lobbies have far too much power, and indeed, the "news" 
papers, but we agree that their imposed laws are wrong. We just need to get 
them fixed as and how we can, without breaking them, of others,in the process.


Cheers,
Norm.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Marcel Kilgus]

Norman Dunbar wrote:
> Breaching someone's copy rights, is voluntary, and done pretty much
> knowingly.  The two are not the same thing. Apples and oranges. As
> far as I am aware, nobody is dishonest,  because of their genes - much as 
> some would hope to think!

So we can already agree that there are "apple laws" and "orange laws".
In my eyes this contradicts the law and order approach of "law is the
law, no matter what" you brought up, which is all I wanted to point
out with the example.

But ok, I'll shut up now.

Marcel

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Marcel Kilgus]

Norman Dunbar wrote:
> OK,  perhaps stealing was the wrong word, copyright theft is better
> as that's what it is known in court, I think.

Actually the correct phrase is "infringement". I'm not an native
speaker, but theft and stealing seems synonymous to me. Calling it
either is classical Doublespeak.

> The law is the law, regardless,  else anarchy results. But laws can
> be changed - 27Mhz CB radio in the UK back in the early 80s, same
> sex partnerships, then marriage, etc?

The point is, laws are mostly written by the lobbies, not by the
people and copyright law is a big example of that. The exclusive
rights to Mickey Mouse are in danger of expiring? Hey, extend the
copyright another 20 years, problem solved. Rinse and repeat. And
people here seem to be happy about it, I find this very strange.

Cheers, Marcel



___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Norman Dunbar]

PS. When it was still illegal to be gay in the UK, my uncle had to hide away 
with his friends and lovers. He couldn't be open about it. However, his 
sexuality was not his choice, it was just how he was "built". 

Breaching someone's copy rights, is voluntary, and done pretty much knowingly.  
The two are not the same thing. Apples and oranges. As far as I am aware, 
nobody is dishonest,  because of their genes - much as some would hope to think!

Cheers,
Norm
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Norman Dunbar]

Afternoon Marcel,

OK,  perhaps stealing was the wrong word, copyright theft is better as that's 
what it is known in court, I think.

The law is the law, regardless,  else anarchy results. But laws can be changed 
- 27Mhz CB radio in the UK back in the early 80s, same sex partnerships, then 
marriage, etc? 

And having had a homosexual uncle when it was illegal in the UK to be that way, 
I might have a better idea of it than you perhaps? 

Those laws are nothing more than the result of some fuck wits and their 
religious beliefs, based on a crap, contradictory, "holy" book, written 
centuries ago, edited by "The Church of Rome" in 325 ACE (I think) to keep the 
bits they wanted, and destroy the rest. 

They've had their way for far too long, but times change, people change and 
laws change, sometimes far too slowly. Women can vote in the UK now, but can't 
be (Catholic) priests - go figure, even with the sex equality laws. This is 
wrong, and needs fixing.

But breaking the law, no matter how silly one's opinion thinks it is, for 
opinion is all it is,  doesn't get changes pushed through. At least in the UK. 
Maybe Germany is different? I've not worked there for many years.

When I say "the law is the law" doesn't mean think it's correct, but it is the 
law.


Cheers,
Norm.


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Marcel Kilgus]

Norman Dunbar wrote:
> Copyright, to get back on topic, is copyright, no matter how much
> it sucks, or that people have abandoned products, you cannot just
> steal (for that is what it is)

Um, no. The music industry and other advocates for stricter copyright
laws want you to believe that. But by definition if you steal
something from somebody then the original person doesn't have it
anymore afterwards. This is decidedly not the case with digital
copies.

> The law is the law, no matter how silly it might be. Parking tickets
> or otherwise!

Yeah, and it wasn't too long ago that being gay was illegal in your
and many other countries. But the law is the law, right? Sorry Norman,
I can't stand this line of thinking.

Marcel

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Norman Dunbar]

Hi Dilwyn,

Don't feed the trolls is good advice,  in any situation. 

I have to admit to feeding the ones who come calling and telling me that 
Windows is reporting a nasty virus each time I connect to the Internet. Those I 
consider fair game,  and it's game on. I kept them on the phone over 2 hours 
once, posing as a 73 year old pensioner,  with probably the world's slowest 
laptop! 

Cold callers get short shrift, "sorry, I never buy anything, nor take part in 
surveys,  goodbye! "

Copyright, to get back on topic, is copyright, no matter how much it sucks, or 
that people have abandoned products, you cannot just steal (for that is what it 
is) some one's work just because you think it should be free. The law is the 
law,  no matter how silly it might be. Parking tickets or otherwise! 

There are lots of stuff I use in the Linux world that are free,but not 
everything. I know of Web sites where "free" stuff is available, but not for 
me. No matter how easy it is. 

Cheers, 
Norm.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Geoff Wicks]

On 07/07/2016 14:31, Rich Mellor wrote:

On 07/07/2016 11:13, 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  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

Maybe with our legal backgrounds, we both see the need to protect 
rights and for that reason neither of us would get involved in hosting 
copyrighted files.


I think the need to obtain the copyright holders' permission is 
paramount - if you do not bother to approach them and are later found 
out as having breached their copyright, then it is a much more fraught 
position than if you contacted them first and ascertained what they 
would like to happen.


I have come into this discussion late as my online time has been 
restricted recently.


Unlike Rich and Wolf I am not a lawyer, but I was on officer of the 
British law courts for over 9 years and both think legally and know the 
importance of upholding the law.


I have discovered that you usually achieve more by working through legal 
channels than evading these. Rich is a good example. In practice he has 
achieved far more in preserving QL software than any of his critics.


It is not just software that is a problem. At the turn of the decade 
Dilwyn transferred several QL publications into e-reader formats. Others 
jumped on the bandwagon and not all were as careful as Dilwyn to ensure 
legal compliance. I remember talking to Dilwyn in my role as editor of 
QL Today and in his role as Quanta news editor to discuss who we could 
and could not trust. Just as Rich has to uphold the integrity of his 
website, so Dilwyn and I had to uphold the integrity of our magazines.


At the time there was a lot of clamour for an electronic version 

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Wolfgang Lenerz]

Hi,



Sorry. To clarify: Those who 'simply' observe the law are not considering
the ethics behind the law, they are just following the rules. The point is
to understand the ethics (the spirit of the law).


Unfortunately, there isn't always one. What is the ethic behind VAT? 
What is the ethic behind parking spaces, that were free, being made into 
paid ones with a meter?
More on topic, what is the ethic behind copyright being extended from 50 
to 70 years after Disney asked for it?




I do appreciate your thought about dismissing a point of law that is
unethical.



The problem with ethics is that they are too changeable. My ethics may 
include not eating pork, or going arounb with a berad or some form of 
headgear, or women having less rights than men, or homosexuals being 
labeled as deviant etc ad nauseam.




There are also people who are simply evil.


In Buddhism the only sin is ignorance. Profound ignorance can result in evil
acts. The people themselves are not considered evil, though they still get
locked up.


OK, I profess my ignorance on buddhism. However, there are people who, 
for example,  hurt others, fully knowing what they are doing and that 
they shouldn't be doing it. To my mind, they are not ignorant to any degree.

 Sorry for going so far off topic.

Wolfgang

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Dilwyn Jones]

You won't win arguments with people like this, so you wither ignore
them and get on with your life or you deal with them in such a way
they can't / won't upset you again for a long time.

These "rules don't apply to me" people are generally of low moral
integrity and generally untrustworthy and will often stab you in the
back. So if dealing with them, you have to fix it firmly once and for
all or walk away from it. Just like dealing with the playground bully.

This may work in the playground and in prison, Dilwyn ;) but internet 
trolls are harder to combat. One strategy that seemed to work for me 
(though I dont have that much experience) is to ignore any remarks by the 
troll by merely pointing out to the general reader of the thread, in a 
succinct, matter-of-fact, non-aggressive language, that the previous 
remark was written by a troll and may blithly be skipped unread together 
with any future remarks from the same account. Trolls feed of others' pain 
and discomfort, and starve if that cannot be had. If the majority of other 
members on the list are genuine and mature, with only one or two trolls, 
the trolls soon auto-combust or wither.


The important thing is to not engage in any way with the troll or his/her 
"arguments", comments or abuse, and for one's own piece of mind, not even 
to sneak a peek at them oneself for any reason!
Trolls, yes, absolutely, because they hide behind the pseudo-anonymity of 
the medium. Deprive them of this horrible demented self-satisfaction and 
they soon starve, as you say. Just like dealing with persistent junk callers 
(the real bane of my life), all you can do is not engage them in 
conversation - they persist with people who talk to them until they make a 
sale/take over your bank account/steal your life and there's generally not a 
lot you can do about it except being mentally prepared to hang up or put the 
phone to one side and refuse to talk to them (firewall your sanity). My 
generation got bullied at school, now much of the bullying takes place by 
Bookface or whatever the kids use these days and on the whole we ain't 
dealing much better with it than traditional bullying in my school days - 
will we ever learn to?


Dealing with trolls and the whole electronic harassment thing is pretty new 
to society and the old ways of dealing with people like that are no good. 
The inventers of the internet never foresaw that for every good thing it 
brought, there was bad as well and the internet was never really devised to 
cope with criminality, kids accessing porn and abuse and so on. Which is why 
the bad guys always seem to be one step ahead.


I do reserve the right to imagine myself punching them on the nose though 
(even though I never would of course).


Anyway, this is creeping away a bit from the original discussion, sorry.

Dilwyn 




-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4627/12574 - Release Date: 07/07/16

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[pjwitte]

On 07/07/2016 17:31, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
<>


arsed walking to a smoking bay 10 yards away. The very same people who
moan if your car touches a line in a parking bay promptly go and park
their sacred expensive BMW across two parking bays next to you.


Back in the 90's I had the misfortune to drive a series 7 BMW. I was 
not impressed - contrary to many people I encountered while driving 
it. Most of them could be counted on to fawn and scrape and generally 
debase themselves in front of this potent symbol of Mammon. They didnt 
seem bothered by how I might have come by it (drugs? trafficking? 
money laundering?) Women smiled flirtatiously; parking wardens were 
painfully obsequious; inconvenienced pedestrians humbly forgiving. The 
pompous, farting fool of an owner I drove around for half a year had 
converted it to run on LPG, presumably to shave an infinitisimal 
percentage of his tax-free expences account. Everything about that 
wretched machine was wasteful, impractical and, though Im loathe to 
denigrate German technology in public, plain stupid, to my sense of 
proportionality, utility and modesty. I guess the whole point of the 
thing was to give one a sense of power and invulnerability, and a 
continuous reminder that one is superior to the creeping, crawling 
unwashed masses in the way. Like trolls, there is not much you can do 
about the owners, except avoid them where possible, and ignore them 
where not..



You won't win arguments with people like this, so you wither ignore
them and get on with your life or you deal with them in such a way
they can't / won't upset you again for a long time.

These "rules don't apply to me" people are generally of low moral
integrity and generally untrustworthy and will often stab you in the
back. So if dealing with them, you have to fix it firmly once and for
all or walk away from it. Just like dealing with the playground bully.

This may work in the playground and in prison, Dilwyn ;) but internet 
trolls are harder to combat. One strategy that seemed to work for me 
(though I dont have that much experience) is to ignore any remarks by 
the troll by merely pointing out to the general reader of the thread, 
in a succinct, matter-of-fact, non-aggressive language, that the 
previous remark was written by a troll and may blithly be skipped 
unread together with any future remarks from the same account. Trolls 
feed of others' pain and discomfort, and starve if that cannot be had. 
If the majority of other members on the list are genuine and mature, 
with only one or two trolls, the trolls soon auto-combust or wither.


The important thing is to not engage in any way with the troll or 
his/her "arguments", comments or abuse, and for one's own piece of 
mind, not even to sneak a peek at them oneself for any reason!


Per
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Richard Howe]

Thanks Wolfgang

>> Those who appreciate the value of copyright do so because it is 
>> 'right' to morally and financially support those who give energy to 
>> projects that interest the community. Those who break copyright law 
>> are ignorant of this, their minds commonly lacking respect for others. 
>> Those who simply observe the law have missed the point.

>Oh, I can't let that stand. I might find a rule of law stupid, but still
obey it, as it's the law. But in doing so, I may not have missed the point,
on the contrary, I may have dismissed it (which is why I'd find the rule
stupid).

Sorry. To clarify: Those who 'simply' observe the law are not considering
the ethics behind the law, they are just following the rules. The point is
to understand the ethics (the spirit of the law). Oh and I just found the
wiki for fun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

I do appreciate your thought about dismissing a point of law that is
unethical.

>> 2. Letting go.
>>(...). It's easy to
>> forgive them because they are obviously too ignorant to dig themselves 
>>out  of the pit they have dug for themselves.

>There are also people who are simply evil.

In Buddhism the only sin is ignorance. Profound ignorance can result in evil
acts. The people themselves are not considered evil, though they still get
locked up.

>> 3. Copyright.
>> I would not be fussed if copies of my old QL programs were passed around.
>> However, I am writing a website that uses a few original ideas in 
>> them, and I 'would' be fussed if the ideas were misused and undermined 
>> my current project.

>Ok, but that would NOT be covered by copyright, in most cases!

Agreed. I am still happy I wrote those programs.

Thanks for responding.

Richard Howe

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Kurt K]

I agree and a full list should be assembled with a coordinated effort.  Still, 
it begs the question, can the existing site be migrated to an alternate domain 
if this becomes necessary.  This would be the simplest solution and minimize 
the disruption until your list of suggestions can get up and running.

> On Jul 7, 2016, at 1:23 PM, "Rich Mellor (RWAP)"  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On July 7, 2016 at 7:13 PM Kurt K  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> If I may reframe the matter not as a discussion on the relative merits of
>> Copyright but in regard to the effect on the greater community. It is simply
>> wrong to discontinue a worthy project, harm and reduce the viability of those
>> supporting the QL due solely to a sad minority of individuals. This is an
>> extreme approach that punishes all and rewards the malcontents by caving to
>> their actions. As a community, we have shown the willingness to help one
>> another and find a more appropriate redress. Changes that lock down your 
>> site,
>> altering and filtering communications and allowing others to assist to spare
>> you the sole burden is a measured approach. By ending the project in this
>> matter, it is more a condemnation on all of us, rather than those few who are
>> driving this action. I would suggest a migration of the project if you feel
>> you can no longer deal with this onerous issues. I know we need you and want
>> you to continue but recognize we also must assist if your efforts are
>> to survive.
> 
> As I have stated on the QL Forum - I wish I could continue with this project -
> but having put up with these comments for 2 years, it does have an impact on 
> the
> reputation of my business and the extra stress does not help with my current
> ongoing illness.
> 
> There is plenty of opportunity for others to step forward who are interested 
> in
> preserving QL software with plenty of jobs to do:
> 
> a) Check the spreadsheet I created on dropbox to see if any more titles are
> already on Dilwyn's website (or even similar sounding ones so we can check 
> them
> against the preserved version).
> b) Similarly check against software in the Quanta library - whilst that 
> software
> is generally not public domain (being donated to Quanta for the use of its
> members), some titles are actually public domain when you read accompanying
> quill files
> c) Try to find copies of the software which is MIA or where they are marked as
> corrupt on the spreadsheet
> d) Try to identify and track down / contact the copyright holders for other
> titles which are not currently available
> e) Check the spreadsheet against the QL Wiki to identify where entries need to
> be created or updated
> f) Work through old QL User / QL World magazines (and other magazines) to
> identify even more software titles and add details (however basic) to the QL
> Wiki - particularly about when they were first sold and prices.  Watch out for
> interviews or letters / news items which might indicate the name of the author
> or person behind a publisher.
> 
> 
> That is just off the top of my head - I am sure others will spot things that
> they can do .
> 
> 
> Rich Mellor
> RWAP Software
> www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
> www.sellmyretro.com
> ___
> QL-Users Mailing List
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Rich Mellor (RWAP)]

 

> On July 7, 2016 at 7:13 PM Kurt K  wrote:
>
>
> If I may reframe the matter not as a discussion on the relative merits of
> Copyright but in regard to the effect on the greater community. It is simply
> wrong to discontinue a worthy project, harm and reduce the viability of those
> supporting the QL due solely to a sad minority of individuals. This is an
> extreme approach that punishes all and rewards the malcontents by caving to
> their actions. As a community, we have shown the willingness to help one
> another and find a more appropriate redress. Changes that lock down your site,
> altering and filtering communications and allowing others to assist to spare
> you the sole burden is a measured approach. By ending the project in this
> matter, it is more a condemnation on all of us, rather than those few who are
> driving this action. I would suggest a migration of the project if you feel
> you can no longer deal with this onerous issues. I know we need you and want
> you to continue but recognize we also must assist if your efforts are
> to survive.
>
 
As I have stated on the QL Forum - I wish I could continue with this project -
but having put up with these comments for 2 years, it does have an impact on the
reputation of my business and the extra stress does not help with my current
ongoing illness.

There is plenty of opportunity for others to step forward who are interested in
preserving QL software with plenty of jobs to do:

a) Check the spreadsheet I created on dropbox to see if any more titles are
already on Dilwyn's website (or even similar sounding ones so we can check them
against the preserved version).
b) Similarly check against software in the Quanta library - whilst that software
is generally not public domain (being donated to Quanta for the use of its
members), some titles are actually public domain when you read accompanying
quill files
c) Try to find copies of the software which is MIA or where they are marked as
corrupt on the spreadsheet
d) Try to identify and track down / contact the copyright holders for other
titles which are not currently available
e) Check the spreadsheet against the QL Wiki to identify where entries need to
be created or updated
f) Work through old QL User / QL World magazines (and other magazines) to
identify even more software titles and add details (however basic) to the QL
Wiki - particularly about when they were first sold and prices.  Watch out for
interviews or letters / news items which might indicate the name of the author
or person behind a publisher.


That is just off the top of my head - I am sure others will spot things that
they can do .
 
 
Rich Mellor
RWAP Software
www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
www.sellmyretro.com
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Kurt K]

If I may reframe the matter not as a discussion on the relative merits of 
Copyright but in regard to the effect on the greater community.  It is simply 
wrong to discontinue a worthy project, harm and reduce the viability of those 
supporting the QL due solely to a sad minority of individuals.  This is an 
extreme approach that punishes all and rewards the malcontents by caving to 
their actions.  As a community, we have shown the willingness to help one 
another and find a more appropriate redress.  Changes that lock down your site, 
altering and filtering communications and allowing others to assist to spare 
you the sole burden is a measured approach.  By ending the project in this 
matter, it is more a condemnation on all of us, rather than those few who are 
driving this action.  I would suggest a migration of the project if you feel 
you can no longer deal with this onerous issues.  I know we need you and want 
you to continue but recognize we also must assist if your efforts are 
 to survive.  

> On Jul 7, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Wolfgang Lenerz  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Those who appreciate the value of copyright do so because it is 'right' to
>> morally and financially support those who give energy to projects that
>> interest the community. Those who break copyright law are ignorant of this,
>> their minds commonly lacking respect for others. Those who simply observe
>> the law have missed the point.
> 
> Oh, I can't let that stand. I might find a rule of law stupid, but still obey 
> it, as it's the law. But in doing so, I may not have missed the point, on the 
> contrary, I may have dismissed it (which is why I'd find the rule stupid).
> 
>> 2. Letting go.
>> (...). It's easy to
>> forgive them because they are obviously too ignorant to dig themselves out
>> of the pit they have dug for themselves.
> 
> There are also people who are simply evil.
> 
>> 3. Copyright.
>> I would not be fussed if copies of my old QL programs were passed around.
>> However, I am writing a website that uses a few original ideas in them, and
>> I 'would' be fussed if the ideas were misused and undermined my current
>> project.
> 
> Ok, but that would NOT be covered by copyright, in most cases!
> 
> 
> Wolfgang
> ___
> QL-Users Mailing List
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Wolfgang Lenerz]

Hi Rich,



Maybe with our legal backgrounds, we both see the need to protect rights and
for that reason neither of us would get involved in hosting copyrighted
files.



I mostly see the risks in doing that...
I don't want to get drawn into a debate whether copyright is "good" or 
"bad" or "right" or "wrong". That horse has been beaten to death. The 
fact is that copyright is the law of the land - if you don't like it, 
try to influence your MP. (Ahem, good luck with that).



I think the need to obtain the copyright holders' permission is paramount -
if you do not bother to approach them and are later found out as having
breached their copyright, then it is a much more fraught position than if
you contacted them first and ascertained what they would like to happen.

Provided they say yes. If not, I do believe that you would be in breach 
of copyright, whether they said nothing or an outright "no".





As for the impact on my health - the problem is that (as some people are
aware) I have been struggling with poor health now for 2 1/2 years.


I'm very sorry to hear that!




I would rather not publicise the attacks further by including extracts -


I still believe people like that deserve to be exposed, but it's your 
life and your decision.


Wolfgang

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Dilwyn Jones]

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's the sort of double standards you expect these days. "The rules don't 
apply to me" is a standpoint so common now, it's absurd. The very same 
people who say they support the NHS stand by hospital doors smoking forcing 
you to walk through their smoke because they can't be arsed walking to a 
smoking bay 10 yards away. The very same people who moan if your car touches 
a line in a parking bay promptly go and park their sacred expensive BMW 
across two parking bays next to you.


You won't win arguments with people like this, so you wither ignore them and 
get on with your life or you deal with them in such a way they can't / won't 
upset you again for a long time.


These "rules don't apply to me" people are generally of low moral integrity 
and generally untrustworthy and will often stab you in the back. So if 
dealing with them, you have to fix it firmly once and for all or walk away 
from it. Just like dealing with the playground bully.


Dilwyn 




-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4627/12574 - Release Date: 07/07/16

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Richard Howe]

Hi

I don't often reply in the forum but I do watch it, and this thread caught
my attention.

Issues:
1.  Integrity.
2.  Letting go of personal attacks by trolls, and the trolls
themselves.
3.  Copyright.

1.  Integrity.
Those who appreciate the value of copyright do so because it is 'right' to
morally and financially support those who give energy to projects that
interest the community. Those who break copyright law are ignorant of this,
their minds commonly lacking respect for others. Those who simply observe
the law have missed the point.

2. Letting go.
When encountering people of low integrity it is important first to recognise
them for the ignorant people they are, and quickly say 'bye'. It's easy to
forgive them because they are obviously too ignorant to dig themselves out
of the pit they have dug for themselves. Allowing trolls space in your mind
will lead to your poor health as you are allowing your own ego to mull over
their negative words. Simply know the community is constructive, and will
dismiss them and their comments. Only trolls really engage with trolls.
Letting go is an important healing principle.

3. Copyright.
I would not be fussed if copies of my old QL programs were passed around.
However, I am writing a website that uses a few original ideas in them, and
I 'would' be fussed if the ideas were misused and undermined my current
project. The law allows for 'fair use' of parts of a copyright item and this
is wise. Special licences can also widen the availability for users while
protecting essentials for the author. Perhaps I should mention that thirty
years ago I wrote the Spy and Master Spy editors, Archivist, Mailfile, etc.
Back then there were enthusiasts but few buyers, much like today. I haven't
sold anything QL in the last twenty years. I seem to remember all the
profits were ploughed back into advertising. That's the nature of the game
sometimes.

Kind regards
Richard Howe

-Original Message-
From: Ql-Users [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of Rich
Mellor
Sent: 07 July 2016 14:32
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation
Project

On 07/07/2016 11:13, 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  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
s

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Rich Mellor]

On 07/07/2016 11:13, 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  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

Maybe with our legal backgrounds, we both see the need to protect rights 
and for that reason neither of us would get involved in hosting 
copyrighted files.


I think the need to obtain the copyright holders' permission is 
paramount - if you do not bother to approach them and are later found 
out as having breached their copyright, then it is a much more fraught 
position than if you contacted them first and ascertained what they 
would like to happen.


Let's face it, if someone approached a best selling author and said - 
could we host downloads of your books from the 1980s which have been out 
of print for 20 years, they may well say yes - I would love to see it.  
But if you offer the books for download and then someone pointed them to 
your site, they are much much less likely to think that is acceptable.


As for the impact on my health - the problem is that (as some people are 
aware) I have been struggling with poor health now for 2 1/2 years - the 
stress of dealing with these personal attacks on both myself and my 
business just compounds that as it adds to my (already) poor sleep.


I would rather not publicise the attacks further by including extracts - 
but there are several (generally Spanish) forums and even a well known 
Spectrum forum where these attacks have been levied (generally started 
by the same username, but then carried on by others).


--
Rich Mellor
RWAP Services
Specialist Enuuk Auction Programming Services

www.rwapservices.co.uk

___
QL-Users Mailing 

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Wolfgang Lenerz]

Hi Per,

> 
> I agree with everything you say above. I presume you do not mean to
> imply that any significant /future/ software must also be free. 

Ah, of course not, good catch!

Wolfgang

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Marcel Kilgus]

pjwitte wrote:
> 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'm certain nobody is implying this, least of all Wolfgang and me.
When I changed EasyPtr, which was not written by me originally but
improved at a significant personal cost in terms of time, this was
again commercial. Considering the time spent on it I think I made 5€/h
on that one over all the years. Still I made it free now because I
cannot really in good conscience still charge for it anymore.

And don't get me wrong, the will of the creator should always be
obeyed. If Fred Toussi doesn't want Text87 to be released then I think
this is pretty weird because it's an amazing piece of software and a
shame that nobody can see how cool it was for its time, but hey, it's
his call. I don't necessarily feel the need to extend the same
courtesy to people who didn't take part in the creation, however.

Marcel

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[pjwitte]

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  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

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[p...@zx81.de]

I am also a professional software engineer and do agree in most points with 
marcel. 
I try to release everything as good as possible if there is no reasonable 
financial interest anymore. 
I do however respect the copyright of each and every program. 
In my opinion there is no way to offer downloads of any software when the 
author hasn't given explicit permission. 
I have great respect in what rich has achieved in this point. Tracking down the 
copyright holders and getting permission to offer it freely is hard work that 
cannot be paid enough. 

kind regards Paul



> Am 06.07.2016 um 12:02 schrieb Marcel Kilgus :
> 
> Rich Mellor wrote:
>> I shall however, not get involved in software piracy.
> 
> Really no disrespect to you or your work. But, as a creator of
> software and probably of the most commercially successful QL software
> of the last 15 years, I find this whole piracy debate in the QL scene
> pretty laughable. This is mostly software that hasn't been touched,
> supported or updated in 30 years. Why would anybody care what happens
> to it? The decent thing to do for the authors is making the stuff
> freely available (sans copy protection if possible) once you're
> leaving for greener pastures. That's what I do with my stuff.
> 
> The creators have abandoned the software, so what's the harm in
> having it freely available? Who in their right mind would actually go
> to court over some MDV image of software they haven't touched in 30
> years?
> 
> So far I've kept quiet in the debate out of respect for you and your
> work. But all this is against my common sense. I can't imagine that
> this whole commercial re-releasing of ancient software is in any way
> worth it. It's a bit of a shame, too, I would like to try some of the
> old QL games, sure, but I would never spend a single cent on them,
> ever. I would probably only play them a few minutes each, just for the
> fun of it, and that's that then. And I guess I'm not alone in this
> respect.
> 
> The QL is dying (dead?) and keeping stuff commercial is not really
> helping in this respect. I released EasyPtr for free recently because
> I was asked how one could obtain a copy and I found it really too
> embarrassing to still ask for any money for this old stuff.
> 
> Marcel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> QL-Users Mailing List

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[derek]

Hi Rich,

I had a look at the negative comments, which I would say that they do not want 
to support the QL. They everything for nothing, which was a similar position 10 
years ago with the hardware I was trying to supply.

I completely support the hard work you were performing, with little or no 
reward.

Nearly every piece of software I bought, is now free. I am probably guilty of 
not buying much these days. But I think new software is needed for the QL.

I am not sure my programming skills are good enough to write quality software, 
but I like to try.

DerekOn 6 Jul 2016 10:09, Rich Mellor  wrote:
>
> In view of the highly negative (and offensive) comments which I have 
> received on various forums about my approach to the preservation of QL 
> software, I have now taken the decision to formally close my project. 
>
> It is interesting to read that World of Spectrum is also going through 
> similar problems due to people becoming abusive to the people who invest 
> time and money in the site. 
>
> Thankfully ql-users has remained immune, but since all of this is having 
> a negative impact on my health, and taking me away from the small amount 
> of time I am well enough to work each day, it is with regret that after 
> 9 years, my own project has now come to an end. 
>
> It is a shame as over 120 titles have been released as freeware in the 
> past 2 years mainly due to my efforts in tracking down and contacting 
> the copyright holders to ask them what they wanted done with their 
> software.  A further 29 titles have also been re-released commercially 
> as a result. 
>
> The majority of feedback seems to be that my commercial interests are 
> ruining the software preservation and that a project where software is 
> preserved and simply made free to download by all is what is required 
> (without any willing hands to do the work). 
>
> I shall therefore no longer be updating the QL WIki and if there is not 
> enough interest to keep this going (and updates by others), then perhaps 
> I should remove its hosting as it is obviously of no value.  Similar 
> comments apply to the SBASIC/SuperBASIC Reference Manual Online. 
>
> The QL community will now need to find others to take software 
> preservation and the QL Wiki forward - there is a spreadsheet available 
> for reference which shows the current list of known programs and status 
> of preservation: 
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/84m3eizdplf9fv3/%21%21%20Full%20QL%20Software%20List%20-%20Preserved.xlsx?dl=0
>  
>
> There is also the Italian software preservation project - which has been 
> running alongside my own personal project and concentrates on preserving 
> img dumps of microdrive cartridges and disks (complete with copy 
> protection etc) - although again, Simone (Outsoft) has been criticised 
> for not making what he has preserved to date freely available for 
> download, in breach of copyright. 
>
> So - where does it go from here? 
>
> That is up to the community to decide. 
>
> There is now a huge opportunity for the community to decide exactly what 
> QL preservation should look like, how it should be funded and who should 
> be responsible for preserving the software and maintaining any 
> repository, dealing with copyright holders and hosting the websites / QL 
> Wiki etc 
>
> If anyone can provide evidence that permission has been obtained for 
> even more software to be released as freeware, then I can of course 
> release it from my stored backups - although you may still need to 
> remove copy protection, find additional copies to merge together into 
> one fully working copy, or alter the software to get it working on 
> modern systems and emulators.  I shall however, not get involved in 
> software piracy. 
>
>
> -- 
> Rich Mellor 
> RWAP Services 
> Specialist Enuuk Auction Programming Services 
>
> www.rwapservices.co.uk 
>
> ___ 
> QL-Users Mailing List 
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Withdrawal of my personal Software Preservation Project

[Marcel Kilgus]

Rich Mellor wrote:
> I shall however, not get involved in software piracy.

Really no disrespect to you or your work. But, as a creator of
software and probably of the most commercially successful QL software
of the last 15 years, I find this whole piracy debate in the QL scene
pretty laughable. This is mostly software that hasn't been touched,
supported or updated in 30 years. Why would anybody care what happens
to it? The decent thing to do for the authors is making the stuff
freely available (sans copy protection if possible) once you're
leaving for greener pastures. That's what I do with my stuff.

The creators have abandoned the software, so what's the harm in
having it freely available? Who in their right mind would actually go
to court over some MDV image of software they haven't touched in 30
years?

So far I've kept quiet in the debate out of respect for you and your
work. But all this is against my common sense. I can't imagine that
this whole commercial re-releasing of ancient software is in any way
worth it. It's a bit of a shame, too, I would like to try some of the
old QL games, sure, but I would never spend a single cent on them,
ever. I would probably only play them a few minutes each, just for the
fun of it, and that's that then. And I guess I'm not alone in this
respect.

The QL is dying (dead?) and keeping stuff commercial is not really
helping in this respect. I released EasyPtr for free recently because
I was asked how one could obtain a copy and I found it really too
embarrassing to still ask for any money for this old stuff.

Marcel




___
QL-Users Mailing List