›               o=o=o=o=o=››    Atari 8-Bit Emulators -- Part IV››            By Alan Sharkis›        Editor, OHAUG Newsletter›› I have mixed (said with tongue firmly› planted in cheek) emotions about what› has   transpired   since   the   last› installment   of   this   series  was› written.  On the one hand,  I'm  very› happy that Darek Mihocka has seen fit› to make PC Xformer 3.6  available  to› those  who call his web site and that› he's   promised   to   get  the  next› commercial version out very soon. I'm› also grateful that Markus Dietzen has› reconsidered   and    reversed    his› decision to end development of XL-It,› that Chris Lam  has  added  sound  to› Rainbow '95 and that Steve Tucker has› released version 1.11 of A. P. E.   I› haven't  actually  worked  with these› new emulators, but you  can  be  sure› that I will.  On the other hand, look› at all the trouble (wink!) it  causes› me.   Hey,  guys,  I'm running out of› floppies, I can't keep  up  with  all› those  changes,  and  my  family  has› trouble  remembering  what   I   look› like!›› I  guess  those  reading this article› can  tell  that  I  still  feel  that› emulation will help the  survival  of› the  Atari  community.   What  is the› community, anyway?  Surely,  it  must› include  users  of Atari hardware and› software designed for those products.› But  emulation gives it a new twist. › If somebody gave away their trusty XL› five  or so years ago, and has become› nostalgic for what he used to do with› it,  and runs some of the software in› emulation on a PC or Mac, is he still› a  member  of  the  Atari community? › Yes,   the   definition   has  to  be› stretched.  There are those who  will› argue  that  since nothing but a real› Atari computer can run  the  bulk  of› programs  made  for  Atari computers,› running the software on  an  emulator› is not the "real thing."  I'd add the› word, "yet," to that comment  because› I've    seen   enough   interest   in› emulators to propel their  developers› toward that goal.  On this count, I'm› for inclusion of those who use  Atari› software  on  non-Atari platforms  in› the definition  of  the  community.  › I'm  also  in  favor of extending the› community to include  those  who  run› Atari  programs in emulation on their› laptops and  notebooks,  thus  making› the   Atari-In-Emulation    a   truly› portable machine.›› On another count, I run into problems› because of my rather unique position.› First   and   foremost,  I've  little› interest   in  game  software  beyond› appreciating how clever some  of  the› games  and  their  design  can be.  I› just bomb when I try to manipulate  a› joystick!  Second, I'm the newsletter› editor of OHAUG and the secretary  of› LIAUG.   (Those who are savvy can now› discern   where   this  discourse  is› headed.)›› It's rather widely known  that  there› are  Web  and ftp sites where one can› download all kinds of .ATR  and  .XFD› image  files of Atari software.  Some› of   these   sites  are  particularly› devoted to game software and/or  non-› game  cartridge images.  The majority› of both the games and the  non-  game› cartridge  images were made from what› was originally copy-protected media. › Whether  the  media   was   "cracked"› recently  or fifteen years ago is not› the issue here.  The intent, both  at› the  time of cracking it, and now, is› questionable.›› Suppose I had defeated protection  on› a  piece  of software, some time ago,› so  that  I  could  make  a  personal› archival   copy  of  that  software. › Doing so would  have  been  perfectly› legal -- the software was for my eyes› only and  not  for  distribution.   I› might  have  done  it  because  I was› afraid of "bit-rot" on  the  original› disk.   Suppose I never sold, or even› gave or allowed that copy to be taken› by someone else.  But now, there's an› atmosphere that would encourage me to› do  so.   I  could  be  "helping  the› community  to survive" by making that› copy available to the community  long› after  its original publisher stopped› distributing it, lost interest in it,› and  gave  up  seeking royalties from› it.  Should I do that?›› In   user   groups,  we've  seen  the› proliferation    of    public-domain,› freeware and shareware programs.   In› the  cases   of   public-domain   and› freeware,  there's  no  problem  with› distribution.   Nor  would there be a› problem with trying  to  defeat  copy› protection,  since  it simply doesn't› exist   on   these   programs.   With› shareware, distribution is also not a› problem.   The  ethical  thing for an› individual recipient to do is to  pay› the  author a shareware fee when that› recipient   uses  the  program  on  a› regular basis.  User groups cannot do› more  than urge individual members to› do so, although OHAUG  did  recognize› outstanding  programs   by   awarding› authors of outstanding public-domain,› freeware and shareware programs  cash› prizes  or   giving   them   honorary› memberships  for  a limited time.  If› the   shareware   is  missing  a  few› features until  "registered,"  or  if› registration  gets  the   user   some› enhancements, it's usually well worth› the fee.›› What   about   "cracked"   commercial› programs?   The charter of just about› every   user  group  with  which  I'm› familiar   has   a   statement   that› prohibits  such  distribution   under› group  auspices.  Some group charters› even prohibit the discussion of  such› activity  under group auspices.  I've› seen   and   heard  of  action  taken› against those  who  tried.  Again,  a› group  cannot be held responsible for› what individual members do  on  their› own.  What, then, is the status of an› individual who knowingly  distributes› such programs?›› Status  can  be  described in several› different  ways.   Had  he  "cracked"› and/or distributed the  program  when› it was making money for its publisher› and royalties for its  author,  there› would  have  been  a strong moral and› ethical count against him as well  as› a  legal one.  Now, many years later,› there are those who would argue  that› the  moral  and ethical side is a lot› weaker.  They'd say that the original› publisher and/or author have long ago› written off  the  thought  of  making› additional  money  from the program. › Indeed, many of the  software  houses› have  disappeared,  and  the  same is› true   of   many   of   the  original› programmers.  I'd agree, but with one› exception.   I  feel  that   if   the› original  publisher  and/or author of› the   program   could   again    make› considerable  money  from  it, they'd› jump at the chance.  The way in which› they'd  do  that  is  to  take  legal› action   against   the   cracker   or› distributor.  The penalties  for  the› cracker  or distributor, assuming the› case is won, would  be  quite  heavy,› and  would get heavier under some new› legislation     that     is     being› considered.›› It has been proposed by some that all› the owner of a Web or ftp site has to› do  to  protect  himself against such› legal   action  is  to  volunteer  to› remove any programs if  the  original› programmer  requests  it.  Some  have› even posted such notices, and claimed› that there has been no response  from› any  of   the   copyright   holders. › They've  taken  that to mean that the› copyright holders simply  don't  care› about  somebody   else   distributing› their  work  at this time, even if it› denies    them    income.     They're› encouraged by the fact that the  same› thing  is  happening at sites devoted› to other platforms.›› It has also  been  proposed  by  some› that  somebody could set up a sort of› "clearing house" that  would  make  a› token  amount  of money  available to› the   original  programmers  if  they› allow their work  to  be  distributed› through  the  Web  and  ftp sites.  I› feel that the token amounts  proposed› would  not  attract  participation of› the original programmers,  given  the› greater settlements they'd be getting› if they pursued legal means.›› Do those  original  programmers  care› about  potential  profit  or  loss of› such profit any more?  I'd guess that› it  would vary from one programmer to› the other,  and  it  would  certainly› depend  on  whether  they still had a› hand   in   programming   for   Atari› computers  or  making  a  profit from› such programming. There are  still  a› few    in   that   position.    Would› programmers  and/or  software  houses› take legal action against  owners  of› Internet  sites  that distribute such› material?    Again,   I   feel    the› potential  for doing so will increase› when (and  if)  the  new  legislation› comes  down.   Even under the current› status of both United States law  and› International  copyright  agreements,› the  potential  for  both prosecution› and civil action is much greater than› most  of  us  realize.   So  are  the› penalties.   If  I were to quote some› of the provisions, many of you  would› be  amazed.   I'm  not  a  lawyer and› don't pretend to  be.   But  I  don't› have to be a lawyer to understand the› severity of the consequences of legal› action  under  those provisions or to› understand what  is  and  what  isn't› restricted.›› It's   pretty   clear,   then,   that› individuals run great risks  if  they› operate  outside of the law.  Are the› risks worth the possibility that  the› law  will  be  changed   to   exclude› material    related    to     classic› computers?   In  that  sense,  should› individuals  from  the  other classic› platforms    band    together    with› individuals in the Atari community to› challenge the laws?  Such a challenge› might be based on the idea  that  the› software  in question has no monetary› worth to their original  authors  and› publishers  at  this  point,  but has› inestimable     intellectual      and› emotional  value to the community and› its     survival.      Could    these› individuals, in the process, create a› category  of  software  that  can  be› copied  without  legal  restriction? › Isn't  that  the  current,  de facto,› situation?›› Also, what about the distribution  of› such material via the Internet?  This› is about as sticky  as  it  gets.   I› have  in  front of me a discussion of› copyright issues as  they  relate  to› educational use.  The document states› that there were  suits  of  copyright› infringement    naming     commercial› network    proprietors     as     the› responsible party.  It further states› that courts ruled  that  the  network› could  be  tried   for   contributory› infringement  when they didn't remove› such material.  It's now  up  to  the› courts  to  determine  the  amount of› liability held to  a  provider  or  a› service that unknowingly disseminates› unauthorized copyrighted  materials. › We'll  just have to wait and see what› the courts decide.›› The issue of  copyright  infringement› seemed  to  be  dead  and gone in our› community, indeed in  all  the  other› classic  computer  communities, until› emulation   emerged.   Now  it's  hot› again.  I hope  it  can  be  resolved› without    tossing   emulation   out,› because I do believe  that  emulators› can  preserve  the  spirit   of   the› classic  machines;   especially   the› spirit of the classic Atari.››               o=o=o=o=o=›››