Give & Take, The Big Corp, The Little Guy, & As

I'm surfing AquaSoft yesterday, and I see it - the dreaded copyright arguement, spring up once again after laying so quietly in the shadows. I realized it has been some months since this issue has raised it's ugly head, and we have some newer members that may not understand how AquaSoft views copyright infringement. Hopefully, the following will help clear the air for another few months, until this issue jumps back out of the shadows once again.

First, let me say in no unclear terms that Aqua Soft could be shut down at any moment for violation of Apples copyright. There's no arguing this point. Its clear, its simple and very easy to understand. Keep this in mind, as I will address this issue at the end of the post, and perhaps touch on why we have not been shut down after years of operation.

Copyright is in place to protect property. The property could be intellectual (an idea or concept), or it could be a created work (artwork, multimedia, software, etc.). Copyright ensures that the creator of copyrighted property has a say in how their idea or creation is used. For example, if you create a desktop wallpaper, copyright gives you a say in who distributes and uses your wallpaper. Under copyright you could say that WinCustomize has permission to distribute your wallpaper, or that they could even package it with software that they sell. On the other hand, copyright gives you the ability to deny MicroSoft or any other organization from using the wallpaper without your express consent. There is much more to copyright, but thats it in a nutshell.

Aqua Soft, whether right or wrong, protects the little guy. Whos that you ask? The little guy is you. The little guy is every artist and developer that creates a new work on their own. Heins doesn't want his icons redistributed? We honor that. Mr.Yamaguchi asks not to distribute Yz applications, we honor that. Konfabulator, a small but growing company, asks that their weather images not be used in other peoples widgets and applications, we respect and honor that. The general rule is this; if the entity that owns the copyright made under $100 million in profit last year, we stand up for their rights.

Here's the tricky part; the site itself is based upon violating Apples copyright. It sounds harsh, but its the truth. We don't follow Apples copyright, and at any moment, like they have to many other sites using their works, Apple could send us legal notice to shut down. Apple (and Microsoft) makes well over $100 million a year, and we have no plans to honor it's copyrighted images, which it can do on its own dollar. Which begs the question, "Apple has known of Aqua Soft for years, why haven't they shut us down?"

Good question. Perhaps it has been that of all the organizations that have violated Apples copyright, not one praises Apples ingenuity more than Aqua Soft. We devote ourselves to the OSX interface, pixel by pixel. If something is below the OSX standard, the community cries for improvement. It is this devotion, kindred to Apples own standards for quality, that I personally believe Apple respects. We violate their copyright, but we honor their work. I would be willing to bet that more members of the Aqua Soft boards have become Mac owners because of this commitement to quality than on any other forum, regardless of PC or Mac orientation. Aqua Soft is the perfect bridge for Apple to reach the countless scores of PC users, and we have over the years. We will, with Apples silent blessing, continue to do this for years to come. In an ideal world, Apple would recognize this, and give us limited rights to the use of their interface designs. As it stands they have left us alone, while sending numerous cease and desist letters across the world wide web.

So the next time someone from SpyMac (or any other Mac fan site), or a new forum member here, or anyone wants to point an accussing finger because you are 'stealing from Apple', know that they are a fellow Apple devotee and calmly explain to them that while Aqua Soft may violate Apples copyright, we honor Apples copyright more than any other organization out there. Explain our devotion, explain our standards, and most of all, point out the number of new Apple users we have brought into the fold. Maybe they'll get it.

And the next time you see a ripped work of one of the small guys, report it. Protect those that can't protect themselves.

#194229

This is Pinning material.

I thank you Deadzombie for such an eloquent explanation.

------------------------

The Topic Has Been Pinned

// Seph

#194231

Originally posted by deadzombie@Jul 26 2004, 03:03 PM

On the other hand, copyright gives you the ability to deny NAMBLA or any other organization from using the wallpaper without your express consent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nambla?

just out of curiosity, why use that as an example?

#194258

Becasue 99.9999% of the civilized world recognizes that sex with small boys is disgusting and abhorrant. EXACTLY the kind of organization you would not want pushing your copyrighted works in promotion of their sick ideals.

Thats why.

However, it does read a little strange because of that one reference. Nambla (bastards) has been changed to MicroSoft. I think it reads much better now.

#194260

oh ok... i thought you just picked it randomly... it just seemed weird when i first read it. was wondering what the connection of nambla to wallpapers were.

#194263

thanks for posting this. its really all about respect. and people can we please keep this thread clean!

#195257

OK, I'm going to nitpick again.

1. Copyright does NOT deal with how you can use a work. It only deals with distribution. You use these terms interchangeably, they are not. I can USE a copyrighted work however I want, but there may be restrictions how I can distribute it.

2. Copyright IS intellectual property. Art is NOT a physical manifestation as you say. The simple example is how you can make a thousand copies of it in an instant on a computer. How is this physical?

But I definitely agree with your point. The purpose of copyright (and all IP) is to encourage THE LITTLE GUY to create works by giving him a LIMITED monopoly on the idea, or in this case, the representation of the idea.

Copyright has been perverted beyond this goal. Apple has nothing to fear from our group. They make plenty of money. And don't say "they have the right to make trillions of dollars from their icons and look". They don't. They have the right to make a reasonable profit. Copyright was not created to give artists the ability to retire off of one piece of work (or anything similar). I won't even get into copyright length. Copyright is supposed to be limited, 70+ years is not limited.

You also must understand that copyright was created to enrich the PUBLIC DOMAIN by encouraging people to share their work instead of keeping it locked up. Any work once created is owned by society. We GRANT people temporary control. That is subtle, but it's a big difference. It's societies right to use the work you created, it is not your right to control it.

So what DZ (I think) is saying, is that we'll "grant" you control over your work (we won't break the copyright) as long as it's reasonable. That's all this rant is about. Don't make overly restrictive licenses, don't try to tread on our fair use, etc, and we'll all be peachy. Apple is doing fine. If we feared they wouldn't be able to make any money because of our doings, we'd stop.

I don't think this should be pinned though. Especially not in this section.

#195290