Re: OMG!

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

Not a bad idea, but fair use virtually never works when the taking is
substantial with respect to the whole unless the work is very brief (< 2,500
words).

Also, non-commercial use does not automatically guarantee fair use.  As to
damages, actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would
leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor
is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result.

Your last point hinges on the definition of morality.  But if you don't
care, then the moral issues become irrelevant ;-))

"Sheldon Simms" <sheldon@interprice.com> wrote in message
20010507.181001.841148365.13435@ip148.interprice.vi">news:20010507.181001.841148365.13435@ip148.interprice.vi...
> 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.
>
..snip..
>
> 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.