Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

[apple2pd@garp3.icaen.uiowa.edu (ground.ecn AppleII Librarian)]

In article <398E3580.FCF019FE@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>
>The problem is that the law is reasonable and appropriate, but it keeps you and
>others from what you want, but don't have the right to have. So you whine about
>the law, and create false analogies, divert from the main point and can't even
>understand clearly written sentences that are contrary to what you wish to hear.

Poor defensive reasoning, but legally correct.  For far too many years and
even almost a century after the creation of the USA, slavery, by law, was
reasonable and appropriate.  It took a gutsy President and his
supporters, plus the Civil War, to convince others that slavery was WRONG.
Some still remain unconvinced.

For the next century, law supported the separate but equal doctrine.
Again it took years of hard work by men such as Martin Luther King and
many others and a forward looking Supreme Court to change the law and make
integration the correct viewpoint.  Still, many remain unconvinced.

Today's arguments over copyrights seem trivial in comparison with the
moral problems of slavery and segregation.  But they are NOT trivial to
many - neither to publishers, authors, artist/performers, etc. nor to the
general public who wishes access to information.  Not free as in $$$, but
free as in unrestricted and universal to all, for a fee.

Debate and compromise are needed to create a usable, workable, system of
copyrights.  When copyrights are inappropriate for current customs and
society, then they become useless to society no matter how legal and
lawful they remain.  Current laws regarding copyright for software are
becoming dinosaurs.  Authors life + 70 years seems reasonable for many
creative works, but for computer software that has a commercial life of
often less than 2 years in todays rapidly changing OS'es; the time has
indeed come to question the current copyright laws.  Thus, debate is
necessary for both sides to arrive at a workable compromise.

Reasonable to me is:  Unconditional copyright for software, etc. for 5
years, renewable for 2 year increments by registration (mail-in postcard
form?) up to the maximum copyright term (Life + 70 years).  Details may
vary, but the point should be to make copyright a active process in which
the creator/holder has to indicate interest in the works, or they pass
into public domain.  Authors and their heirs could still protect their
interests, publishers and artists could protect their works, etc. for as
long a period as they wish.  Once interest is lost, the public has
access.

This would work as well as, and hopefully better than, current copyright
laws, as the copyright holders remain identifiable and protected, and the
status of 'lost' works is established, ie. public domain.

Therefore, to get the laws changed, people must debate and let their
congressional representative know how they feel and what is workable.
Some diehards will always think todays laws are best, but at least a
larger segment could respect a more dynamic version of copyright that was
in synch with technology.  The world is not static.  Society is dynamic
and the laws must be dynamic, or the laws will become a burden on society.

As we are beginning to feel, anarchy (piracy) is the result.  Current
copyright law may be the best, but don't argue it is because it is
'reasonable and appropriate'.  Everyone has a different view of 'reasonable
and appropriate'.  Let's work for a copyright law that protects interests
of both authors and the public, so that it is respected by all.

Some people need to be reminded debate is differing viewpoints offered in
a respectful exchange of ideas.  NO vulgarity, NO demeaning name calling,
NO spiteful comments.  Comments from homeless, stray pets also are not
helpful! ;-)  Please ignore/do not respond to any post which lack civil
character.  Then maybe we can make progress.

IMHO,
  --Steve

-- 

 --Steve  (apple2pd@ground.ecn.uiowa.edu)