To Al Kossow at bitsavers

I tend to agree - the use of the word "theft" is an emotional response and doesn't help the debate. Without getting too legal you can only steal something if you intend to permanently deprive the owner if it and that's not happening here - the owner still has it. It's an issue with the use of it that we grapple with. I'd like to think that common sense will prevail in this space one day and if you're legitimately preserving something then no-one will have an issue. ++++++++++ Kevin Parker ++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ian Finder Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2015 3:25 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers It seems to me that Paul Koning's attitude will lead retrocomputing to die. We can't all own computers that can do interesting things with front-panel programming alone. By his definition, I have committed a lot of "theft" in my days to restore systems I had no other options left to deal with, due to restrictive licensing, incommunicado business entities, or IP situations with no well understood outcomes. I am always happy to pay, but that's not always an option. I agree the proper routes should always be pursued when possible, but bits are fading fast and without dark archives that may run afoul of present day copyright laws and original EULAs, many things will be lost permanently. I find the mindset of considering all abandonware scenarios "theft" to be pedantic, toxic, shortsighted, and counterproductive- as well as logically and legally baseless. - I Sent from my iPhone property. Let's not try to apply it here. Court, but then again, what do they know?