Re: Backup Copies

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

Im Artikel <3ACD0C15.E5815614@inetnebr.com> schrieb "Roy and/or Janet
Miller" <millers@inetnebr.com>:


> Sheldon Simms wrote:
> 
>> Morality is a much fuzzier concept than just what's written down as a
>> law. Some people believe that morality is defined by God, or some other
>> infallible authority. I don't expect there's anything about
>> distributing old software on the internet in the Bible.
> 
> most systems of ethics would agree with the Bible and the
> Quran that you shouldn't take something that doesn't belong to you
> without the permission of the owner.
> How many times have you seen local papers and TV stations do the old
> "lost wallet" sting to see if the people in their area are honest? Since
> I have moved a lot, I've seen it a number of times. Wallet, with money,
> and no ID. Here in the center of the country a large majority of people
> try to  find the owner, or contact the police for same. Too bad people
> don't do the same with software.

There is quite a large difference between the two situations. Money
is inherently valuable; old "out of print" software isn't. If I take
"lost" money, I am depriving the owner of something. If I distribute
otherwise unavailable software, I'm not.

And in any case, the situation with lost money is exactly an example
of the concept of abandonment I was talking about in another post.
When you find lost money, it's yours as long as it can be demonstrated
that the owner has abandoned it. This is accomplished by taking the
money to a place where the owner can easily reclaim it if they choose
to do so -- usually the police. If no one claims the money within a
certain period of time, it's yours.

You may be under the impression that somehow having the police involved
makes it ok to gain ownership of money that originally didn't belong to
you. The fact it, the police have nothing to do with the issue per se,
apart from the fact that they are an easily accessible central location
where the owner can claim his lost property. If the owner shows no
ownership interest, then the money becomes the property of the finder.

Likewise, if the "owner" of software (that is, the copyright holder)
shows no ownership interest, he can lose ownership of the software.
I'm not saying that as a point of case law, decided in court. I'm just
pointing out that it is completely consistent with the well established
legal concept of abandonment.

> 1. Prove that the software in question has been abandoned. Do you
> abandon your car if it breaks down on the highway? May I take it then,
> because it's abandoned?

Yes you may, if abandonment is established. With a broken down car
there is naturally a presumption that the owner will return and repair
it. If however, enough time passes without the car being retrieved by
it's owner, then abandonment law says you can take it. Of course, every
person attempting to do such a thing must be prepared for the possibility
that the original owner may eventually demand the car back. Then it's a
case for the courts. In any case, the "taker" of the property will not
face any theft charges assuming a reasonable man would agree that the
car was abandoned.

Assume my car breaks down and I leave it on the side of the road. If you
take it the same day, you will be charged with theft. If you take it
after it's been sitting there a week, you are taking a chance of legal
repercussions. If you take it after a month, you won't be charged,
although you might have to give the car back if I show that I really
had a good reason to leave it there for a month. If you take it after
a year, it's yours.

> Or the wallet on the sidewalk, it's been abandoned.

see above.

> 2. What's wrong with contacting the copyright owner and
> asking permission? Other than some people are too lazy to try; or
> perhaps are afraid of getting a negative reply.

I have nothing against it. But as I'm sure you know there are many
cases where the contact has not been possible, or it's not even
clear who the copyright owner is, and furthermore, no one who has
a property interest in the software has shown the slightest interest
in the software for many years. What then? I say copy away for the
benefit of humanity. That's what intellectual property law is for,
after all -- to benefit society at large.

And another thing. As far as Appleworks goes. It is an unfortunate
fact that large companies will practically never release copyright
or grant free distribution rights on anything they own. It's not
because they actually care if someone copies ancient software they
have no interest in selling. It's because their lawyers tell them
that doing so would weaken their legal protection on products they
still care about.

Companies like Apple want to play it safe when it comes to copyright.
The last thing Apple wants is to make Appleworks freely distributable
and then watch someone try to copy Macintosh-Appleworks or Mac
System software, or anything else claiming that the newer software
is somehow the same thing as the older software. Of course the idea
is basically ludicrous, but from Apple's lawyers point of view,
why take a risk? Just say no to every thing and protect yourself
maximally.

-Sheldon