Re: Backup Copies

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

Im Artikel <mnioctg07rctjgon98t40vmrrhoj48b198@4ax.com> schrieb "John L"
<jlogo@zipworld.com.au>:


> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:07:14 +0200, "Sheldon Simms"
> <sheldon@interprice.com> wrote:
> 
>>Im Artikel <0j3oct4f0eafo5gvqkvqc8dccindf1mguu@4ax.com> schrieb "John L"
>><jlogo@zipworld.com.au>:
>>
>>> I don't recall any version of Copy ][ Plus being reclassified as
>>> shareware or freeware.
>>Do you know where it can be bought?
> No, unfortunately.  I've been trying to find a source for C2+ with no
> success.
> 
>>I'm just curious because I actually don't mind paying for stuff when the
>>copyright holder still has a financial interest in the product [1].
>>Otherwise, I and a lot of other people here are just going to ignore
>>you. Call the police if it makes you feel better.
> It's not a question about theft, but rather, respect for an Author's
> intellectual property.  Many here will argue that out-of-print
> copyrighted Apple // software should be freely distributed since it's no
> longer being sold.  A fair point but it's fundamentaly flawed in the
> eyes of the law.

Well first you say it's not a question of theft, and then you say that
the problem with giving out copies of otherwise unavailable software
is that it's "fundamentally flawed in the eyes of the law." If the
law actually has anything to do with it, then call the police like I
said before. You know exactly how far that'll get you.

As for respecting intellectual property, you have a minor point. But
it is also fair to point out that intellectual property is not the
name as physical property and does not have the same legal protections
as physical property. If I copy a piece of software, I don't deprive
the copyright holder of use of the software, or the ability to keep
selling the software. I only deprive him of the monetary value assigned
to the right to use the software, which I otherwise would have to pay.
That is certainly not appropriate, and is therefore illegal.

When the copyright holder has no interest in distributing the software
and the software is not available other than by copying, then I
deprive the copyright holder of nothing. The only people possibly
being deprived are those who would like to resell second hand copies.
But then again, they are not the copyright holder, and there is no
intellectual property issue.

Even if intellectual property had the same sort of legal protection
as physical property, there is in many countries a legal concept of
abandonment. Regardless of how much something is worth, if the rightful
owner shows no interest in the item, then he/she can lose possession
rights over the item. No one is going to spend the time and money on
to establish in court that this concept is valid for old, unavailable
software, but it's fair to point out that abandonment is basically
shown by the fact that other people start using the property, and the
rightful owner knowingly ignores it and/or implicitly allows it. In
such cases, the "users" are not punished. In fact, they can be given
full ownership.

Here's a little snippet from www.britannica.com:

  abandonment
  in Anglo-American property law , the relinquishment of possession of
  property with an intent to terminate all ownership interests in that
  property. Abandonment may occur by throwing away the property, by
  losing it and making no attempt to retrieve it, by vacating the
  property with no intention of returning to it, or by any other act
  manifesting a complete disclaimer of ownership in the property. The
  general effect of abandonment is to give full ownership of the
  property to the first taker.

> That's all I'm going to say on this subject since this issue has been
> dealt with many times on this NG.

That's for sure.

>>If Central Point Software and/or the copyright holders of Copy II+
>>aren't interested in selling the software, then I'm not interested
>>in buying it - even though I may still be interested in using it.
> That's your choice.  I'm not putting you under duress to comply with
> copyright laws.

But actually you are. You complain when one person offers to make a
copy of some software for someone else. If you really just want to
let people make their own choices, then why not just be quiet about
it?

-Sheldon