¢ 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=¢¢¢