Re: OMG!

["Sheldon Simms" <sheldon@interprice.com>]

Im Artikel <RCxJ6.20265$Aj1.8134559@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> schrieb "Frank
Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>:

> First, why do you think that such a case would stand a good chance of
> being dismissed?  i.e., what part of copyright law do you believe
> depends on a copyright holder showing a "continuous interest" in a
> copyrighted work?

Well it could, for example, be argued that such use is fair use
since it is 1) non-commercial in nature 2) the copyright holder is
not damaged by the use 3) the copyright holder has implicitly allowed
such use over a lengthy period of time 4) the use has no effect on
the potential market or value of the work.

> Second, an injunction is a remedy that is unrelated
> to damages.  Attorney's fees and costs may be awarded at the discretion
> of the court (17 USC 505)

Yes of course. I only speculate that this discretion would not be
exercised in such a case.

In any case, I have never contested that it may be technically
illegal to download and/or provide for download old, abandoned
software for old, out-out-production, obsolete computers. I have
only said that I don't care and that I don't think that it is a
question of morality. Similarly, I don't care if it is technically
illegal to jaywalk and I don't think there is a question of morality
whether I jaywalk or not.

-- 
sheldon@semanticedge.com  "The term (denotation t) denotes the object denoted
                           by the object denoted by t." -- KIF