Re: OMG!

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

Jeff Blakeney wrote in message

>Path 4:  If an individual uploads it to the net, then that individual
>still has the copy they bought and you are downloading a copy that the
>copyright holder has never benefited from.  This is because path 4
>starts at the individual level rather than the copyright holder level
>and the copyright holder.  The individual is usurping the right of the
>copyright holder to determine how many copies exist by making a copy
>available for one or more others to use.


Not necessarily true. With software as old as we are talking about, chances
are there are quite a few originals that have been destroyed. Also, an
original copy is a more substantial copy than someone's download off of
Asimov so that they can play it on an emulator for 3 days, and then they
delete it so that there is more room for Diablo II. If we contact someone
who can prove that they've destroyed or thrown away an original,  and ask
for their "license" are we then legal to download a single "copy" ?

>Yes, it is completely clear that it is illegal and no, copyrights do
>not last forever.  They have a finite time limit for copyright
>protection but that certainly doesn't expire when users decide it
>should or when companies stop making new copies available.  This may
>not be the best system and you may not like it but it is what is in
>place today.


Definitely not true. As far as many users on here today are concerned,
copyrights are indeed forever, in a very practical sense. Even if the
expiration is never extended again (a big IF, don't you think?), the
software in question will in all likelyhood be out of the public domain well
past my expected lifespan. Even a single extension to the expiration will
make this certainty. I'd say this would be true for all but the tiniest
fraction of people "illegally" downloading abandonware. What, maybe some 11
yr old playing a few apple II games, if he is the rare person to live into
his 90s might have a chance of downloading such in a manner that satisfies
the IP nuts. Another 20 year extension, and it's out of his reach, too.

Besides, does anyone really doubt that in 19 years, that Disney won't need
to buy more legislation? Or maybe you believe that in two decades we will
have cleaned up goverment, and they will be honest, moral citizens trying
their best to serve their nation?

And then there is the issue of the IP industry not taking care of
"intellectual property" even though it has historical value. Hollywood has
corporate vaults full of film from the 40's and even earlier, that is
literally rotting. No one could make copies of it legally, and they don't
feel inclined to do so. Film lasts quite a bit longer than double density
floppies, I would venture. How likely is it that you favorite apple II
software will be around, come time for it's copyight to expire? For entities
granted the legal privilege to be the sole custodians copyrighted works,
Hollywood certainly were neglectful once the profit margins slimmed. Does
anyone feel more confident of the software industry? Remember, these are the
same people that force ebay vendors to include a hard drive with a boxed
original MS Windows 1.0. As if...

>>Whether or not it is actually illegal to download is a matter that would
>>have to be decided by trial.
>
>No, a trial is not necessary to determine whether something is illegal
>or not.  A trial is a system used to allow someone accused of breaking
>a law to defend themselves and to try to prove that they didn't.  If
>it is proven that they did break that law then the trial is also used
>to determine the penalty for breaking that law.


Trials are cool. Those are those events where an innocent person can be sent
to prison for 15 years, and even after proven innocent, right?

>There is no evidence that the software has been abandoned, that the
>copyright holder has no interest in making the software available,
>that the copyright holder even knows it is being illegally distributed
>or that the copyright holder even knows there is any interest in their
>work.


Hmm. When a piece of property is lost, there is no need to prove it, beyond
waiting a reasonable amount of time for the owner to claim it. Generally,
this can be from 2 to 8 weeks, depending on the locality. When you pick a
dime up off the ground, do you wait forever for the rightful owner to claim
it? Don't act like this is an asinine question either, answer it. I've heard
too many times that it's not the value of the property, but the principal of
the thing. And it's obvious that it's just as difficult to prove the
abandonment of the dime, as to prove abandonment of the software.

>>It would be helpful to find out what your main objection is to the asimov
>>archive (as a representative of the free availabilty of old software in
>>general). Is the problem simply that "it's against the law"? Suppose a
>>new law was passed tomorrow explicitly making the free copying of
>>software legal, as long as the software is otherwise non-available and
>>the computer for which the software was written has not been manufactured
>>for at least 5 years. Would your objections then cease?
>
>If the laws change tomorrow and it becomes legal for those titles on
>asimov to be distributed that way then yes, I would stop objecting.


And if it's the law that all jews must wear stars of david on their clothing
while in public? Bad laws are bad laws. That some are simply mild enough
that the idiotic masses can ignore them comfortably is certainly some kind
of principle. I can't ignore these laws comfortably, and yet...

>I try VERY hard to keep legality and morality separate.  My main focus
>is on the legal issues because there is only a single law for a large
>number of people therefore making it an objective subject.  Morals,
>because they are different from person to person, are far too
>subjective to bother arguing about.


Keeping morality and legality seperate. Let's think about this a moment.
Might have something to do with a belief that laws are created simply so
that you can exploit things to your heart's content. My morals keep me from
particpating in a legal system designed solely so that immoral cretins can
cheat and steal as they see fit. Personally, I need a moral justification to
be part of such a system, otherwise it's just an obstacle to avoid. Since
you have problems with people avoiding this obstacle known as the legal
system, why don't you explain this to us? It really boils down to "don't get
caught" or "there is a reason you should obey this law". No one here really
doubts that if caught, and the system wants to make an example of them, that
they won't be crushed.

>The law is the reason.  I'm not calling people pirates and telling
>them they are breaking the law because it is against my own personal
>morals.  I'm telling them that because they are breaking the law.


You also stand at the side of the freeway yelling at cars as they thunder
by, screaming that speedning is illegal? Speeding does actually lead to
tragic events, from time to time. You have a better chance of doing good
that way, I would think.

>For some reason, there are a lot of people who are comfortable with
>breaking the law and spend a lot of time justifying their illegal
>activities but seem to have a big problem with simply admitting that
>they are breaking the law and refuse to warn people when they point
>them to asimov that the program they are pointing them too is being
>illegally distributed.  If you truly believe you statement that "There
>is nothing wrong with downloading abandoned software from asimov" then
>you should have no problem with admitting that you are pirating
>software.


I admit it. I break lots of laws. Most of the time, I go out of my way to
break the stupid/immoral laws. I'm not a protester either, I'm not doing it
in front of a police officer, just so that a point can be made. I'm sneaky,
and I try to do it in a way that only those who are sympathetic will ever
see it. Catch me if you can.

>Anyways, you have drifted off of the topic of our original
>conversation about whether getting a used copy of a program is better
>than downloading a pirated copy is better or not.  If you don't
>understand my point after this message then I'll stop trying to make
>it clearer as I don't see how I could do it.


I'm a collector of software. Not only do I want the original disks, but all
the materials that came with it, on down to the purchase reciept, if I'm
lucky enough to get it. Not only would I agree that used copies are better,
but I fail to see how anyone could argue differently. Unless, sometimes
there just aren't any originals left... Still, I'd like to know that such
archives exist, if only as an offsite backup should some used copies of mine
turn out to be victim to bitrot.

John