Re: Asimov Site

[wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron Desnoyers Winmill)]

Frank Townsend (ftownsen@iamdigex.net) wrote:
: "Byron Desnoyers Winmill" <wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote 
: > Sorry about entering the wrong side of the debate, but your argument does
: > not ring true from the copyright owner's perspective.

: I was not addressing that perspective.  Copyright owners may do as they see
: fit with their intellectual property.

Ultimately, the whole issue of intellectual property rights must address the
rights and responsibilities of the copyright owners.  Indeed, if the value of
intellectual property plays any role in this debate it should determine when
that property becomes part of the public domain.  Ie. if software becomes of
greater social value, and is not commercially viable for the copyright owner,
the rights should be transfered to the public domain sooner rather than later. 

: the desire of many to buy this stuff on the used market or to download it,
: negates any arguments flowing from the premise that it "has no value."

True.  Unfortunately, the copyright owner does not receive royalties from
the resale of their products.  Since copyrights are intended to protect the
owner, the value of second hand copies become irrelevant under those laws.
Remember: you do not own the ideas unless you own the copyright.  Simply put:
you do not own a piece of software, you meerly own a copy of that software.

: Sure.  Individual copyright holders have that right.  In other instances,
: intellectual property may be economically unviable to sell and support, but
: too valuable to give away.  However, the copyright holder is the one vested
: with the right to make that decision.

Now that you have discarded the principle of consumer value (in preference of
property rights).  Good.  Now consider social value:

Where do the rights of property owners end, and the society begin?  The fact
that copyrights expire acknowledge that there comes a point when ideas (may
they be contained in a piece of literature, music, or software) becomes of
greater social value than private value.  If it becomes to valuable to entrust
in the hands of another individual (or corporation), then it becomes part of
the public domain.  The current system says to wait a few decades.  Fine.  It
is not an issue for books because books can survive for decades.  For software,
the situation is quite different.  Even if the media could survive until the
copyrights expire (which it can't), even if we were ensured that we could read
that media (often we can't), we need to know that people will preserve that
software.  People are not doing that, because software is viewed as obsolete
within months, and is replaced in a matter of years.  Since it contains so 
little value after it becomes obsolete, it is destroyed.  In years of hunting,
I have encountered very little original Apple II software, so I am accute to
this problem (same goes for the C=64, Atari, and other platforms).  This
suggests to me that there is a problem with the copyright duration.

: > : First of all, if its not your land, you are trespassing.  You should
: > : have asked first for permission even to enter.  Even if you have a license
: > : from the owner to enter, you do not have an automatic right to remove
: > : objects from the land.  Basic property law.

: > Strictly speaking, this "basic property law" is not true.

: Well, it *is* basic property law in terms of Anglo-American law.  Read any
: law book.  I was stating the general rule.  Certainly there are exceptions:
: the government can even condemn your property and take it via its power of
: eminent domain; access may be required for owners of landlocked property;
: ownership of waterfront property may end at the high water line, and etc.
: But these are exceptions to the basic rule.

I would expect Canadian and American law to be quite similar, given that both
are derived from the British tradition.  While I am aware that land owners can
ask you to leave their land, the idea that charges can be pressed for walking
across unposted land in absurd.  Indeed, property owners must post clear and
regular signs if they want to protect their property "rights".  Even more
exceptions?  The basic principle of absolute property rights does not appear
to be as clear as you are suggesting that it is.  Perhaps it is because rights
entail responsibilities, and you appear to be suggesting that property owners
have few (if any) responsibilities.  The idea of rights and responsibilities
have been adopted by both of our countries.  So my question is: if a copyright
looses commercial viability, but their property is of some social value, should
the copyright owner be responsible for ensuring public access?  Or does that
author have the right to dictate how people use their work?

Byron.