Re: Asimov Site

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

"Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote in message
news:8ob3eo$k1$1@merope.saaf.se...
> In article <9qQp5.271$J91.36493@dca1-nnrp2.news.digex.net>,
> Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote:
>
> > "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote in message
> > news:8o80ah$jcq$1@merope.saaf.se...
> >
> >> It becomes particularly pathetic when people argue about ownership of
> >> stuff which no longer have any value.
> >
> > 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?
>
> Because they find some personal value in it?  Some people are also
> collectors, and collect things most other people find worthless.

So you agree that vintage software has value on some level.  Good start!

> > If it has no monetary value, why are people willing to pay money for it
> > on eBay and in other venues.
>
> If it has monetary value, why isn't it for sale anymore from the
> copyright owner?

You didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours.  The cost of
reproduction and marketing may have exceeded the expected return.  But
whatever the reason, it doesn't matter.  Copyright confers the exclusive
right to make copies, regardless of the value of the copyrighted work.

> > Besides, I have plenty of things around my house which I treasure, which
> > have no value to the rest of the universe.  However they are mine, and
just
> > because they are truely valueless does not divest me of ownership.
>
> Would you object a lot of someone made copies of them?  Such copies may
> exist more than you're aware of -- for instance on photos your friends
> did snap in your home....
>
> Personal value is a whole different matter -- as you say it means
> something has value only to one or a few people.  There would be no
> point in copyrighting such a value because others have little
> interest in getting copies of e.g. your personal items.

In fact, unpublished works such as photographs, personal letters and diaries
are *automatically* covered by copyright.  Courts routinely uphold those
copyrights.

And such
> values are next to impossible to insure -- if you cannot show to the
> insurance company that something has value not only for you but also
> for people in general, insurance companies are usually uninterested
> in insuring that value.

But your original statement was that "[i]t becomes particularly pathetic
when people argue about ownership of stuff which no longer h[as] any value."
Now you in effect agree that there *is* such a thing as personal value, but
that it is uninsurable.  Kind of a segue, but I'll go with it for a moment.
Insurance is not a particularly good index of value, but is more about risk
spreading.  For example, you may have a very nice house in a flood plain.
Flood insurance for this house may be unobtainable.  This doesn't reflect on
the value of the house, only that the underwriters are unable to spread the
risk enough to justify entering into an insurance agreement.

> >> So the next time you're out hiking somewhere, and you want to pick up
> >> a stick or a stone -- stop!  Do you really have the right to steal
> >> stuff that's not yours?  Shouldn't you ask the landowner for permission
> >> before you pick it up?
> >
> > First of all, if its not your land, you are trespassing.  You should
have
> > asked first for permission even to enter.
>
> Perhaps in your so-called "free" country, but not in my country!
> Here we have an "everybody's right", which means anyone is allowed to
> enter the land of others, if they obey a few rules which can be
> summarized as "don't disturb" (e.g. don't enter too close to the
> living quarters of others) and "don't destroy" (e.g. don't enter a
> farmer's crop field).  This "everybody's right" applies only to
> indoviduals or to small groups of people.  We've had it for
> centuries, and it works out really well.  It benefits landowners too,
> because they too are allowed to enter the land of other landowners,
> without having to ask for permission first.

The only difference is that in Sweden the line is drawn at a slightly
different point.

> With the US scheme, where you need advance permission first or else
> you're trespassing, you're really quite limited when you want to
> move around -- there are only the public roads available to you, right?
> Ah yes, there are some parks too -- but they usually close at dusk,
> don't they?  (we have parks too -- here almost all parks NEVER close....)
>
> So imagine this scenario: you're out travelling.  You stop at some
> point at the road.  You're hungry, you're brought some food, and some
> distance away from the road you see a hill.  Wouldn't it be nice to
> climb that hill and enjoy the view while you eat?
>
> In Sweden:  Go ahead!  Climb that hill, enjoy your meal and the view !!!!
> As long as you don't disturb and don't destroy, the landowner has no
> right to chase you away.

But s/he does, if you wander into his/her house or agricultural area.


> In the USA:  Stop!  Are you trespassing?  Is there a fence or some
> signs?  No, I don't see any -- but that doesn't matter, I still need
> the landowner's permission, which I don't have.  Now, WHERE is the
> landowner?  And WHO is the landowner?  Where do I find this out?  How
> long would it take to find it out?  Nah, too much trouble, I'll drive
> on to that MacDonalds reastaurant a few miles away instead.  Sigh -- I
> wish I had lived in a truly free country.....

Most people here are comfortable with these rules.

> Now, which of these two alternatives would YOU have preferred?

I prefer people not roaming into my yard.  I'll stay here, thank you.

> > 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.
>
> Perhaps I don't even have the right to move a stone or a stick from
> one place to another place, within that property?

Perhaps.


> But I do still have the right to walk around, if I have the
> landowner's permission, right?  Now, what happens if I step on a
> stick and break it.  May I be forced to pay damages then?

Under Anglo-Saxon law, licensees may be liable for damages to property.


>As you say
> below, the principle counts, not the value of the item...

Yes and no.  As to laws regarding theft, the value is unimportant.  As to
civil suits, the value is important in determining damages.

> BTW the Swedish "Everybody's Right" also gives you the right to pick
> up sticks and stones which lie loose on the ground, for your personal
> use only.  You can also pick berries and mushrooms -- again for your
> personal use.
>
> Which of these systems would you prefer?


I prefer to have people leave my sticks, stones, berries and mushrooms
alone.
If in Sweden, I would abide by Swedish law.  I prefer to live in the US.

> >> Yes, that stick or stone is worthless, but as we've seen so many times
> >> in this newsgroup, ownership issues are just as important for worthless
> >> items -- it's the PRINCIPLE which counts to some, not the value of the
> >> items....
> >
> > Yes, that is correct.  Statutes and other laws against theft never make
> > mention of value:  theft is taking the property of another without
consent.
> > Any law abiding person follows this principle.
>
> OTOH no person is 100% law-abiding.....
>

Yes, however general defiance of a law is not a recognized defense under
Anglo-Saxon law.  "Everybody does it" will rarely, if ever, get you off ;-)