Re: Asimov Site

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

"Byron Desnoyers Winmill" <wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:8od0ee$spo$1@nserve1.acs.ucalgary.ca...
> Frank Townsend (ftownsen@iamdigex.net) wrote:

> : That vintage software has no value is, of course, the premise of those
> : who argue that they should have unfettered access to it.  But if it has
no
> : intrinsic value, then why do people want it?
>
> 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.

> This is in reference to releasing the Watcom compilers as open source
software.
> They are clearly suggesting that it is possible for software to have value
to
> their customers, but be of negligable value to the owners as a commercial
> product.

Yes.  But the argument was that this old software is valueless, i.e., zero
value, however, and from whatever, perspective computed.  I was only
pointing out that which seems pellucidly obvious, that 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."

> Granted, in this case the owner is the one determining commercial
viability.
> This gives them the opportunity to judge viability by a measure greater
than
> per-copy sales (such as the value of the trademark), but . . .

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.

> : 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.