Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

["Arkain" <rwking@usa.nospam.net>]

Congratulations! you completed an insult-free post! These are the kinds of
posts that people don't mind responding to. ;-)


"Quantum_Cat" <anonymous@cotse.com> wrote in message
200008042212.SAA17222@anon.cotse.com">news:200008042212.SAA17222@anon.cotse.com...
<snipped>
>  *>No, you don't, but given the definition of a "Vogon" in
> HGTTG and
>  *>the dogmatic way in which you cling to the copyright laws,
> you
>  *>would nearly have to be to keep from being a guilty Vogon
>  *>yourself.
>
> I don't recall the word "perfection" ever being used to
> define Vogon.  Oh well.  When you claim a deragatory term as
> your own, that's the risk you run.  ;)

It's just the problem of categorizing people in general. Most of the time,
the categories chosen don't completely fit.

<snipped>
>  *>If you are a Vogon as you claim, then you should be
> condemning
>  *>yourself for watering the lawn at the wrong time, or
> whatever law
>  *>it is you've broken, in a manner equally as severe as the
> way you
>  *>criticize the so-called Turlettes. I.e. You have a right
> to point
>  *>fingers only if you point them everywhere where it is due,
>  *>including at yourself.
>
> You assert that these law breaking episodes areequivalent and
> that to report criminal activity is not "right" unless the
> person doing so is perfect.  That is absurd.

Yes. It is absurd. Maybe you didn't read that last line. Look at it again. I
basically said that it is hypocritical to report someone else's crimes when
you have crimes of your own that need reporting. Please don't try to read
between the lines with me. I don't usually put anything there. ::-D

> I have the right to voice my opinion anytime, Arkain.  As do
> you.  Now get a grip and come up with some evidence to the
> contrary, eh?

Impossible. No such evidence exists, and I made no claim that it did.

>  *>> If we take this to extremes, then the police would be
>  *>> crippled because they have probably broken laws too.
>
>  *>Isn't it the nature of a Vogon to take things to extreems?
> Also,
>  *>note that by saying that there *IS* an extreem, that you
> believe
>  *>that there are(or at least should be) reasonable
> limitations to
>  *>the law and it's pervue. I'll make a point of this in a
> little
>  *>while.
>
> No, Arkain.. Not to the LAW.. but to your little flight of
> fancy claiming that one can't point fingers unless they are
> perfect.  You missed my point.  You're the one with the
> extreme view of how things should be.  ;)

Flight of fancy? Trust me when I say that my feet are squarely planted on
solid ground. My view isn't extreem at all. If there is no reasonable limit
to the law and it's pervue, then why did you make the comment that "the
police would be crippled because they have probably broken laws too"? It
seems that in your view, the law is an all or nothing situation. Doesn't
that mean that the police who have broken whatever laws should be
prosecuted? If not, then your statements are contradictory.

<snipped>
>  *>> So how can you equate Victorian laws with the Copyright
> Act
>  *>> which was revised as of the end of the first session of
> the
>  *>> 106th Congress in 1999?  Feeble analogy at best, Arkain.
>
>  *>Feeble in your opinion, probably because it does chip away
> at your
>  *>argument... not a lot, but enough to start.
>
> OK.. I was thinking you meant such laws as "A person must
> precede the automobile by a length of 2 blocks warning horse
> owners of the oncoming vehicle." type of thing.

Sorry, but that's too silly! :-)

> If that's chipping away, it'll take an eternity to make a
> dent.  ;)

:-)

>  *>Take a look at the full state charter for wherever you are
>  *>someday. Those laws usually covered everything from
> property
>  *>rights to personal hygene! Definitely an extreme case of
> overkill.
>
> Which is why I try to limit my tirades to Copyright
> offenders.  ;)

What's so special about people who break 15 year old copyrights on abandoned
software as compared to, say J-walkers? Haven't both committed a relatively
trivial offense?

>  *>> Lets stick with comparing apples with apples here, OK?
>
>  *>Apples w/ apples, eh? So if Copyright laws(<-key word) are
> apples
>  *>then old Victorian laws(<-same key word) are what? Looks
> like an
>  *>apple to apple comparison to me. The only way that this
> cannot be
>  *>true is if the issue isn't about **breaking the law**,
> copyright
>  *>that is.
>
> Oh, great...  Next you'll be equating shoplifting laws with
> homicide codes.  I already went through this with Bob.  I'll
> simplify for you..
>
> Breaking laws are illegal.
>
> OK?

Actually no, I wan't going to go there, but since you brought it up...

You've made the point that despite the fact that the software in question
has been completely de-valued by it's copyright holders for an extended
period of time (more than a decade), the violation of such copyrights is
still something to worry about. I think that such violations are trivial,
that it is pointless for such actions to be illegal. From where I sit, your
concern over trivial infractions leads me to believe that *ANY* crime,
regardless of how trivial, is something that you'd be worried about. Am I
wrong?

If I'm right then note that even though shoplifting is far more trivial than
murder, you should show the same concern for both. Likewise, even though old
Victorian codes are more trivial than 10+ year old copyrights on abandoned,
de-valued software, you should be concerned about both. That means that for
you to keep from being a hypocrite, you'd have to annoy Victorian law
violators the same way you annoy so-called Turlettes. That's the point I was
making.

<snipped>
>  *>No. I disregard that fact in some small cases because it
> is nearly
>  *>impossible to legally gain access to some pieces of
> depreciated
>  *>software. Don't comment on this just yet... I'm building
> to a
>  *>point that I'd like you to try and attack....
>
> I'm so contrary.  ;)  Is it nearly impossible because you
> don't want to be bothered to make an effort?

I have bothered to make an effort. It just turns out that in a small number
of cases, there is no one left to contact regarding the copyrights. Since
there is no copyright holder, there is no copyright as far as I'm concerned.
Feel free to view this as you like.

<snipped>
>  *>Not really. I object to the constant barrage of insults
> that come
>  *>from a person who might otherwise have been deemed
> reasonable. I
>  *>object to those who ruthlessly point out faults without
> presenting
>  *>*viable* solutions. Sure. Point all you like, but do it
> without
>  *>insults and give a reasonably acceptable solution that
> satisfies
>  *>both you and the "offender."
>
> We have other reasonable folks here.  They've been slammed by
> the "opposition", and in the case of Nathan Mates, "run him
> off".

It's a sad thing when that happens...

> Being nice didn't exactly work, Arkain.  Being mean polarizes
> our situation, but there have been changes.

Ever think that the issue will not be resolved by persuasion, coersion, or
nuisance? It may be that the only viable solutions are to work with the
remaining copyright holders wherever possible, buy auction copies where
available and shrink-wraps allow, and try to affect the copyright laws for a
proper resolution to the software issue.

Then again, I might be missing something...

> As for what would be an acceptable solution?  Simple.
>
> Get permission, THEN upload it to the publically accessable
> archives.
>
> That would work for me.  OK with you?

Fine! No problem! But what do you do when there is no place left to get
permission from?

<snipped>
>  *>That's good to see that some Vogons are living up to their
> creed.
>  *>As for the copyright holder(s) that *aren't willing* to
> spend the
>  *>money to do something about the problem, then they are
> essentially
>  *>telling all of us that the problem *isn't worth stopping*.
>
> Perhaps _I_ should try a goofy analogy here...
>
> "If it's not worth hiring armed guards to protect, it
> shouldn't be stealing to rip it off".

Goofy indeed!

> Because, Arkain.. armed guards and lawyers would be about
> equivalent in cost.  The "it" could be anything from software
> to your car.
>
> So.. do you have armed guards?  ;)

For the average person, the police are the "armed guards" and public
defenders are the lawyers. No out-of-pocket expenses are incurred using
these services. As for venders of profitable commercial software... it is
completely unadviseable to attempt to run a commercial business, even a
small one, without at least 1 lawyer.

>  *>> My service is free.  ;)
>
>  *>Your service is unsolicited and therefore illegal in some
> places.
>  *>Are you in one of those places? >
>
> Hardly unsolicted any more.  Some want me for whatever small
> amusement I can give them.  ;)

:-)

<snipped>
>  *>Actually, that's the Criminal aspect of the Act. The Civil
> portion
>  *>is prosecuted on differnt grounds. Remember, the Criminal
> aspect
>  *>is prosecuted by the federal govenment, but they will not
>  *>prosecute if the property is not of sufficient commercial
> value.
>
> But of course, this is the same government that has convicted
> exactly 12 folks for breaking the Brady Law in all the years
> it's been in effect.

Unless I'm mistaken (and I very well may be), the Brady law doesn;t cover
any form of IP violation. So I'm not really sure how that applies.

> So, if the courts aren't likely to handle it, why complain
> when a common citizen like me takes pot shots at Turlettes?
>
> You see, it's within MY rights.

...For the same reason that you complain about violating defunct copyrights.
Regardless of the legality, it's just annoying!

> *snip*
>
>  *>> If folks sue for hurt feelings, it wouldn't be too
>  *>> hard to include mental anguish at seeing the theft of
> your
>  *>> property in a suit.
>
>  *>The problem with emotional direst cases is that the
> plaintiff has
>  *>to prove either intent or that sufficient damage was done
> due to
>  *>the "mental anguish." This would be very difficult to
> prove in the
>  *>case of a copyright holder of 15 year old, out-moded, out-
> dated,
>  *>depreciated software.
>
> I notice you have yet to decide on exactly how many years
> software should retain it's copyright.. I've seen 10 and now
> 15...  Others have mentioned 5 or 20...

I said 15 in mention of the age of a piece of software, not in reference to
my believe about the length of the terms. I would make software copyrights
last 10 years after which, if the package is still either being sold or
supported by the copyright holder, the holder can renew for another 10. If
the holder ceases to both sell and support a package, the holder will have 1
final 10 year renewal left, after which the software becomes public domain.
As I said, my view isn't unreasonable.

> Anything you come up with will be just as arbitrary as the
> current 70 or Life of the Author..

Not true. My figures are based on the maximum life expectancy of a given
software package. It seems that after an average of 10 years, the particular
platform that a package is running on tends to become out-moded by newer
platforms. Likewise, the software involved usually becomes out-dated and is
abandoned by the copyright holders. I'm not too big on arbitrary...

<snipped>
>  *>True enough, but you've got about as much "legal" gound to
> stand
>  *>on as a man doing a highwire act. The only "legal" thing
> you can
>  *>do to stop him is to inform the copyright owner. If the
> copyright
>  *>owner isn't *willing* to press charges, then you have no
> ground to
>  *>stand on at all.
>
> No.. the OTHER legal thing I can do is stand here and shout
> "Thief!".
> It won't stop him, but I know it annoys the heck out of him.
> ;)

Then it serves no constructive purpose, and is therefore not really worth
the time you put into it.

<snipped>
>  *>Although he may be illegally posting the materials
> prematurely, he
>  *>is working to legalize the availability of the material.
> Oh, BTW.
>
> Uh.. OK.  So Ted Bundy got a raw deal because he helped
> Granny across the street once?

Don't be absurd! Murder is several orders of magnitude worse than defunct
copyright violation. No real parallel can be drawn there, at least not for
me. The closest I can come to saying something about that is that murderng
someone has financial reprocussions on the surviving families where as
violating defunct copyrights on de-valued, abandoned software has no
financial reprocussions at all.

<clipped>
I't 5 a.m. and I'm too tired to respond to the other half of this post.
Besides, I've already re-presented my point above. So if you'll excuse me...

Arkain