Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

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

"Roy and/or Janet Miller" <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
398B9061.A7E45224@inetnebr.com">news:398B9061.A7E45224@inetnebr.com...
> Arkain wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> No, feeble because the one is a law that is at least a hundred years old,
and
> the other only a year old. I haven't seen any chipping away yet.

If I were to follow Q_C's logic, then it really doesn't matter how old the
law is. A violation is a violation just the same. How old are the treason
statutes again? Despite their age, the laws will still apply so long as they
are still in the charter.

> > > And I doubt very much that the laws you have in mind regard
> > > property rights.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Not necessarily, laws (such as spitting on sidewalks) were very important
in
> light of conditions and knowledge of the day (like TB being a major killer
and
> being spread through spittle.) Perhaps the laws seem strange, but put in
their
> context, they usually make good sense.

I meant for today's context, but then again, in one state, Missouri I
believe, it is literally illegal to have sex in your own house if you aren't
married to your partner. Without using Christian ethics, explain the logic
behind that law!

> > Apples w/ apples, eh? So if Copyright laws(<-key word) are apples then
old
> > Victorian laws(<-same key word) are what?
>
> The keyword is not law. It is the adjective. Unless you wish to compare
homicide
> with puppy poopy laws.

Check your grammar books. "Laws" is a noun. "Copyright" and "Victorian" are
the adjectives. These 2 words describe the type of "laws" involved. Q_C's
argument is that *ANY* violation of the law, no matter how trivial, is
something to be concerned about. In this day & time, the old Victorian codes
are trivial and should be either removed (preferred) or ignored. I was using
them to make the point that some laws are simply not appropriate for the
manner in which they are used.

> > 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."
>
> I have yet to see you try to stop the insults of those on the other side.
Why is
> it that no one around here is bothered by that?

When I see them, I do.

> Hmmm?? Where are your complaints
> against Paul G. and bobryan et al?

I spoke to Paul about his useless "Blah. Blah." replies to Q_C. That
wasabout when he decided that it is better to filter Q_C than to create
inane reply's. As for Bob, when I see a post where he becomes inane and
insulting, I'll reply to him him the same way.

> Besides there is a *viable* solution. Honesty. But that isn't acceptable
to
> pirates.

Honesty is always a viable solution. The problem is what to do when the
owners of the software you want are no longer around to get permission from.
The only honest solutino in that case is to do without the software, but
what if that software is a driver for a piece of hardware you've acquired?
or a piece of turnkey software needed to make other software that you own
work properly? What then?

>
> >
> > >  *>Have any of the so-called vogons informed the original
> > > author(s) & copyright
> > >  *>holder(s) that their rights are being violated? If so, did
> > > they care?
> > >
> > > Yes, some have.  And in many cases they did, but weren't
> > > willing to spend the money on lawyers to correct the
> > > situation.
> >
> > 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*.
>
> No, what they are saying is that they can't afford to spend thousands of
dollars
> to win a few hundred bucks and shut down one pirate site only to have
another
> spring up like mushrooms after a rain. The return doesn't make economic
sense.

You've made part of my point for me. If it doesn't make economic sense to
attempt to enforce a copyright, then it doesn't make sense at all to
maintain such a copyright. At least in the **specific case** of software
copyrights, if it isn't worth defending, it isn't worth keeping.

> We've seen that very thing happen in postings here in the last few weeks.
One
> site is down, and someone gets another up. But there was a good piece of
news. A
> Mac site that did things similar to Asimov was taken down by the SPA.
Perhaps we
> should start talking to them, and getting them to send letters to ISPs
that
> protect pirate sites. That should be interesting.

Small point of notice: the platform known as Macintosh has barely been
around for 15 years and has been viable for the majority of that time. Even
the some of the old 68xxx Macs are still supported by Apple. With this in
mind, it is easy to see that the offenders interfered with Apple's revenue
making ability. I challenge you to show me, without resorting to
hypotheticals, how this is true for those that violate the copyrights of
abandoned A2 software.

> >
> > > My service is free.  ;)
> >
> > Your service is unsolicited and therefore illegal in some places. Are
you in
> > one of those places?
>
> His "service" is called free speech. And you are right, it is illegal in
some
> places. I hope it is still legal in the US and Canada.

You took that too seriously. Maybe I should've put a smiley on it. :-)
If you insist on taking the statement seriously, then...

Free speach is merely the tool he uses to provide his "service." The
"service" itself is legal advocacy. There are some places, even in the US
and Canada, where it is illegal to provide *any* service unsolicited. But as
I said before, that was only supposed to be comic relief.

 <snip>
> > 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."
>
> That's pretty easy to do in the US. Didn't you read about the recent
tobacco
> suit? People who started smoking since packs of cigarettes have been
telling
> them that the Surgeon General of the United States of America has
determined
> that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and who have continued for 20-30
years
> blame someone else for their stupidity and juries award millions and now
> billions of dollars. Simple as pie.

You'd have a perfectly valid point if the tobacco industry hadn't:
    a) insisted that their own tests show tobacco to be non-addictive, and
    b) insisted that their own tests show that second-hand cigarette smoke
wasn't as hazardous as the medical industry claimed, and
    c) etc... (see http://www.truth.com for more info)
and if it hadn't been a class action lawsuit. Individual direst cases don't
fair nearly as well without sufficient evidence, but then again You'll note
from that site that the class action suit had plenty of backing evidence,
thus verifying my claim. Care to try another example?

> > This would be very difficult to prove in the case of a copyright
> > holder of 15 year old, out-moded, out-dated, depreciated software.
>
> Well then, if the software is so valueless, why do you and others
illegally copy
> and distribute it? The fact is that it does have enough value for you and
others
> to go to the effort of getting a copy. Besides, the mental anguish has
nothing
> to do with the economics of it.

*I* don't illegally distribute anything, and rarely do I ever illegally
copy. Please speak to the fact I was mentioning. I said that the software
has no commercial value to the copyright holder. If it did, the copyright
holder would still be selling it!

> > 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.
>
> Posting on csa2 isn't a legal action. It is engaging in free speech. And
that is
> pretty broad legal ground. He can, and has, legally spoken out about it.

Problem... When the speach is defamatory, unsolicited, and done for the sake
of irritation, it is termed harassment. Harassment is illegal.

> > Although he may be illegally posting the materials prematurely, he is
> > working to legalize the availability of the material. Oh, BTW. Did you
check
> > to see if Turley owns the copy that he posted, because if he does, then
he
> > hasn't commited a crime. The criminals would be the ones who download
the
> > material. Laws have so many loop-holes!
>
> In that situation, he has committed a crime. He has violated the copyright
law.
> He has copied, not for personal, private archival purposes. He would have
also
> violated a license agreement, but that is a totally different story.

The argument against your point is too thin, so I won't bother to post it
:-)

> >
> > <snipped>
> > >  *>    "Before you try to get the twig out of my eye,
> > >  *>     you'd better get the log out of your own."
> > >
> > > Bullshit.  ;)
>
> The Lord Jesus Christ spoke those words, which you misquoted, "why do you
look
> at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in
your
> own eye?" Matthew 7:3 And I'll thank you QC to have some respect here.

Thanks for the direct quote. I didn't have it available, so I paraphrased.

<snipped>
> > I made no assumptions that he was/is doing a "fine job" on anything. I
> > simply stated that he is trying to gain legal access to the software for
> > everyone. That will solve the problem of legal distribution.
>
> But there are others doing the same. And they haven't made available
software
> that hasn't yet been granted freeware status. If Tom gets WordPerfect
classified
> as freeware, I'll be the first to publicly thank him. But until that
happens, it
> should not be posted. BTW, Tom, should you read this, or Willie, or
Howard, can
> anyone get SuperCalc turned loose? I'd like to have a copy, if someone has
one
> they'd like to sell.

Good for them. Their actions are more correct than Turley's. My point was
that it is just as necessary to praise the good actions and efforts as it is
to condemn the bad.

<snipped>
> > >  *>accomplishments of those in the camp opposite yours
> > > (Turley and others), I
> > >  *>don't see where you have the right to do that if you
> > > haven't done at least
> > >
> > > Most of the Dorktors accomplishments appear to be collecting
> > > stolen goods, ripping articles from other folks web pages,
> > > conning morons into running his ftp pirate sites, and in
> > > general, being a pimp for many Apple II users.
> >
> > "Dorktor"? The one and only insult. You almost made it... Almost.
>
> And what about your use of the word "vogon" which is an insult? Hmmm?? You
seem
> quite happy to use the term to apply to defenders of private property
rights.

I didn't use "Vogon" as an insult. I used it in the original sense of the
term, which just happens to be what Q_C adopted.

> >
> > Hasn't he also worked at and suceeded at getting a fair number of
software
> > titles released from their copyrights? Certainly that must count for
> > something?
>
> And what about all the programming work that Nathan Mates had done for the
Apple
> II community?

I said nothing of them since they were not a point of mention in the
conversation.  My comments were about Q_C's comments eluding to the idea
that Turley has done nothing to help the community in any way. This is
clearly untrue. Nathan has not received slander from Q_C. If he had, then
he'd be a point of mention in my argument as well. Just as a matter of note:
I prefer the software without the legal baggage.

<snipped>
> > This statement was needlessly demeaning. Drug abuse and software piracy
have
> > nothing in common save that they're both illegal. Remember, you said
that
> > you wanted to "stick with comparing apples with apples here".
>
> Actually, you own original post was demeaning. Are you contending that one
may
> only speak their mind if they can prove that they are better than others?
Only
> those who achieve may have the right to think and speak? That's what you
said,
> is that what you meant? Further, you are now arguing from both sides of
the
> issue. First "law" is the keyword, now it isn't. Make up your mind.

If you construed my statements as demeaning, then I apoloigize for not being
shrewed enough with my wording. I didn't intend for the post to even as much
as seem demeaning, but that's the risk you take in trying to stop slander,
becomming a slanderer youself!  Everyone has the right to think and speak,
but no one has the right to harass. That was my point. Anything else you may
have gotten from my words, you simply misconstrued.

> >
> > >  *>I am a firm believer in following the laws, but I will
> > > ignore them when they
> > >  *>are inappropriate.
>
> That's fine, so long as you are willing to receive the consequences of
your
> actions. There have been laws passed in other nations, that if passed
here, I
> would cheerfully disobey. Laws that are wrong, laws that are immoral.
However,
> that is, IMHO, not the case here. A law that protects private property is
moral,
> even if it assures that my great grand children may receive the fruit of
my
> labor.

You're right, the laws in question are neither immoral or wrong. They are
inappropriate though. If a law exists that prevent you from performing a
reasonable action and is likewise not enforced, will you disobey it? This is
the situation with these all-but-forgotten pieces of software.

<snipped>
> > > If you are free to ignore laws, why are you so upset with the
> > > fact that I ignore you and your rationalization of why it's
> > > "OK to steal"?
> >
> > Because you keep missing the point by ignoring.
>
> Let me get this straight. It's ok for you to ignore, but not QC? What's
the word
> for that... something like hypocrisy??

Let's get this straight. It's not OK for anyone to ignore. I don't ignore
the law, I simply disobey it under the circumstances I described earlier.

> > If you were reading
> > carefully instead of glancing over the text looking for a point you
don't
> > like, you would noticed a small, but highly important detail. The laws
are
> > designed to protect the rights of those that care about their rights.
>
> No, you missed the point. The laws are designed to protect rights, Period.
> Enforcement of those laws are a somewhat different matter.

Why bother making a law that no one in the proper position is willing to
enforce?

> >
> >
> > *** Remember, I promised to make a point of all this? Here it is. Read
it
> > and enjoy. ***
>
> About time.
>
> >
> > Remember saying:
> > > If we take this to extremes, then the police would be
> > > crippled because they have probably broken laws too.
> >
> > above? I submit to you that you are taking the copyright law to an
extreem,
> > the same extreem that would land most if not all law enforcement
officials
> > in jail. This is the point where you have to be able to separate the
"letter
> > of the law" from the "spirit of the law."
>
> You ignored "this". Go read QC's reply again, and see what "this" refers
to. It
> wasn't the taking of a law to an extreme. It was, again, your questioning
his
> right to post unless he is perfect in his keeping of all laws. Now, that's
> extreme.

I did not ignore the "this" in his statement I simply cut to the heart of
the matter... breaking laws. If you had read more carefully, you'd have
realized that I had stated he need not be perfect in any way. I did request
that if he wishes to continue pointing fingers, that he should "point them
everywhere where it is due, including at yourself".

> > The orignal copyright laws were
> > only applicable to printed words and recorded music.
>
> Pssst - laws have to be updated to deal with a changing world. Ours have
been.

...not the laws concerning software copyrights. Software has a much shorter
lifespan than books, music, and data( the items that the copyright laws were
designed for). No adjustments have been made to the copyright law to handle
this brevity of viability.

<snipped>
> > These types of items
> > are known to have a commercial value indefinitely, hence the long
duration
> > of the copyright. Did you know that producers have to pay a royalty when
> > they want thesbians to sing "Happy Birthday" as part of the show?
>
> LOL, where is the commercial value of singing "Happy Birthday", without
the law
> that grants it protection?

Easy. The entity(person or company) collecting royalties has provided the
commercial value. The law is in place to protect that value. What do the
laws have to protect if an entity decides to de-value the protected
property? To me, it seems that there is nothing left for the laws to
protect, and as such, the laws need not bother to cover such things. That
they do anyway makes them inappropriate for the situation.

> > The DCMA was introduced to handle the cases of digitized version of
printed
> > words and recorded music. There has never been a copyright law provided
to
> > handle the case of computer software/firmware. Since these items are
known
> > short lifespan, it is only appropriate that the copyright applied to
them be
> > equally short, on the order of a patent license. Unfortunately this
isn't
> > the case. So as it stands, we have copyrights on software that are
designed
> > to follow the current copyright law even though the copyright law has no
> > provision in it for software.
>
> Case law says that the copyright laws are applicable. Read Byte and other
> journals from the early and mid 1980s and see the various court cases
covering
> software and firmware.

I know. I find it unfortunate that the "letter of the law" is more important
to this generation than the "spirit of the law". It means that laws can be
inappropriately applied to cases that they were never designed to handle.

> > Your statement about extreemes admits that there are reasonable limits
in
> > how a law can and/or should be applied.
>
> No, you missed QC's point. The extreme was saying that unless one is
perfect one
> can't apply the law, enforce the law, or even point out that an activity
is
> illegal. That is how you started your original post, and how QC responded.
> Reread it. You missed the point and have given this really long winded
post to
> make a point that isn't there.

I didn't miss his point at all. I have no reason to think that he needs to
be perfect. I simply initially asked him if he thought he was. As for law
enforcement... Do you like the idea of having the people who are supposed to
protect you from violators being violators themselves? Wouldn't that make
them hypocrites? :-D

> > For me,
>
> Subjectivity has little or no place in legal matters. Objective truth is
what
> matters.

Funny how many cases are won on subjectivity. Did you know that the entirety
of both harassment and direst law depend on subjectivity? What about
character witnesses in criminal trials? They can often sway a case from one
end to another.

> > that limit of reasonablility
> > ends 10 years after a piece of software was last sold or supported by
the
> > copyright holder. That gives the owner plenty of time to re-affirm the
value
> > of the software. Since the law was never designed to protect the
software
> > owner,
>
> Since the law has been updated since the dawn of the micro computer age,
your
> statement is in error. In fact, the law has been updated since case law
has
> shown that software and firmware are protected by the copyright laws, and
if
> they didn't want it to apply to soft/firmware, they had a perfect
opportunity to
> make the necessary changes. The fact that the changes weren't made proves
that
> your statement is totally off base.

Not so fast! Case law is separate from written law. Case law merely sets a
president on the written law. These presidents are often volatile and have
little legal backing by themselves. What case law actually does is show the
judge how other judges have decided in similar cases. It is still within the
judges legal right to decide differently. I.e. there is still the chance
that the laws concerning software copyrights will be made more equitable.

<snipped>
> >
> > A "pirate" is a person that steals items for the intent of building
wealth.
>
> Not at all true. Totally false. The current court case in reference to
Napster
> is all about piracy. How many people exchanging music on Napster are
getting
> rich from it? But each is engaging (should the case be decided against
Napster)
> in piracy.

Try again. Napster is being prosecuted for profiting from providing the
tools and services needed to break the law, knowing that that was how their
tools were being used, without making any attempt to curb such uses. That is
pirating.

Arkain