Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

["Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net>]

I don't mind responding to this post since you really only made 1 insult
(probably force of habit). I'll point it out when I get there.

Quantum_Cat <anonymous@cotse.com> wrote in message
200008041806.OAA15074@anon.cotse.com">news:200008041806.OAA15074@anon.cotse.com...
>
> Hiya, Arkain,
>
>  *>Q_C...
>
>  *>Are you purrfect or something?
>
> Do I have to be to be?

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 wonder how many laws you break every day.
>
> I wonder too.  There are some many on the books.  But I
> assume your point is that if I break a law (say by watering
> my lawn at the wrong time) that I have no right to point
> fingers at Turlettes?

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.

> 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.

>  *>I also wonder how many laws you ignore simply for the fact
> that they are no
>  *>longer enforced? You probably don't even take into account
> all of the old
>  *>Victorian laws that are still on the books, laws that can
> even govern the
>  *>activties in your house!
>
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>  *>Nobody with any sense is bothering to question the
> legality of copying any
>  *>form of commercial software. We all understand that it IS
> illegal for at
>  *>least 70 years after the author's death.
>
> And?  You still disregard the fact because it bunches your
> shorts?

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....

<snip>
>  *>Laws are constantly being broken on this issue. Everybody
> here knows that.
>
> But you object to me waving a flag and pointing out the worst
> of the perps?  Get over it.  ;)

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."

>  *>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*.

> My service is free.  ;)

Your service is unsolicited and therefore illegal in some places. Are you in
one of those places?
>  *>I would wager that they either didn't care or haven't been
> informed. Since
>  *>these packages no longer have a commercial value to the
> copyright holder(s),
>  *>can they even expect legal remuneration for the
> infractions? I don't think
>  *>so, at least not from what I read in the Copyright Act &
> DCMA. Before you
>
> That would be the Civil portion.  There still remains the
> Criminal aspect of the Act.

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.

>  *>can sue for damages, you have to prove that you were
> damaged. Since the
>  *>software is no longer in production, being sold, or
> supported, it no longer
>  *>has a monetary value to its copyright holder(s). It
> becomes a "no harm, no
>  *>foul" type situation.
>
> "No Harm, No foul" is not a legal term.

True. It's more of a coloquialism.

> Perhaps you invented
> it?

Nope. It's far older than I am...

> I certainly know of no court cases where that's been
> used.

That's because cases of this type rarely ever end up in court.

> 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.

>  *>As far as C. Turley is concerned, who cares if he is doing
> it in the wrong
>  *>order(posting the software before he has permission).
>
> Well, obviously _I_ care.  When it does it as standard
> procedure, then that simply enforces the fact that he's a
> thief, and a liar.  Nobody has to "care" for that fact to
> ring true.

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.

>  *>The fact is that he *IS* doing *SOMETHING* to help the
> situation. There's an
>  *>old saying that goes:
>
> Ah... You must be using an entirely different meaning of the
> word "help" than the rest of the world.

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!

<snipped>
>  *>    "Before you try to get the twig out of my eye,
>  *>     you'd better get the log out of your own."
>
> Bullshit.  ;)

It's actually sage advice. Think about it. How can you tell someone to get
out of a hole if you're in the hole with them and haven't figured out how to
get even yourself out? You can't be of much help to someone when you're in
need of the same help! That statement has other meanings too, but this is
the one I meant.

>  *>Turley may be doing things the wrong way, or in the wrong
> order. He may not
>  *>even have accomplished that much when compared to some of
> the others.
>  *>Despite all of that, he is still trying to do something
> about the problem.
>
> The problem is the theft of property that doesn't belong to
> him and his public distribution of the same.  Perhaps you
> hadn't noticed.

I have noticed. There is more to be said on this... so please just keep
reading...

> What problem are YOU concerned about that he's doing such a
> fine job of doing something about?

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.

>  *>Is that more than can be said for you? Have you worked on
> getting some
>  *>software reclassified yourself? Have you succeeded at any
> of it?
>
> Rhetorical question?

No.

> Do I have to jump through your little
> flaming hoops (being perfect, doing something constructive)
> to merit posting my opinions?  To answer your questions the,
> Yes and Yes.

Very good. It's nice to know that you are doing more than just insulting
people.

>  *>I've said all of that to say this. The insults you make
> are pointless and
>  *>only serve to weaken if not destroy any valid points that
> you may have about
>  *>someone else's actions. If you choose to respond to this
> or any other post,
>  *>please keep your comments civil and insult free. As for
> diminishing the
>
> I'm trying.  I think my points stand up very well.  At least,
> in the past, there was a lot of squawking from those who
> found them imbedded in their butts.

:-D
You did well up to here but...

>  *>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.

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?

>  *>as much yourself. If your accomplishments in this
> area(assuming they exist)
>  *>aren't as great, then you need to work on building your's
> up before you can
>  *>look down on someone else's.
>
> I assure you, my accomplishments won't be as low as Turley's.
> I won't be making my corner of csa2 into a nice comfy
> crackhouse.  Disappointed?

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".

>  *>I am a firm believer in following the laws, but I will
> ignore them when they
>  *>are inappropriate.
>
> That's anarchy, Arkain.  Remind me not to call you as a
> babysitter.  ;)

Hey! I was an excellent babysitter in my day!! ;-D
If you think I'm an anarchist because I chose to apply laws only where they
make sense, then I submit that you are an anarchist too! Don't argue the
point just yet. Wait till next paragraph...

> 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. 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.

*** Remember, I promised to make a point of all this? Here it is. Read it
and enjoy. ***

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." The orignal copyright laws were
only applicable to printed words and recorded music. 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?

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.

Your statement about extreemes admits that there are reasonable limits in
how a law can and/or should be applied. For me, 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, it is not reasonable to expect anyone to care about or obey a
copyright that is on software that is 10 years depreciated, especially on a
platform that is no longer available. The DCMA even states that it *is
legal* to archive such material for non-commercial use before the copyright
expires. Don't believe me? Read the DCMA. It's there.

If you still insist that no such reasonable limits should exist in the
copyright law, and yet still insist that there are extreems that should be
avoided in other laws, then you are guilty of hypocricy in the extreem. You
are also likely guilty of breaking other laws in equally as trivial
situations.

>  *>On this, don't try to classify me as a Turlette or a
> Vogon. Those
>  *>definitions won't fit me. You might be able to get away
> with pirate, but I
>  *>do believe that the laws are justified surrounding
> software that is *still
>  *>sold &/or supported*. So I'm not really a pirate either.
> So save both of us
>  *>the trouble and don't classify me.
>
> Alas, the Copyright Act says nothing about "*still sold &/or
> supported*".  Perhaps it should, but it protects EVERYTHING.
> So yes, your really ARE a pirate.  Tough Beans.

Not quite true. Read the copyright law more scrutinizingly and you will see
that only printed media, audio media, and data are covered in this law.
There are no provisions in the copyright law to handle the peculiar case of
software.

A "pirate" is a person that steals items for the intent of building wealth.
I am no pirate. I could steal every piece of abandoned A2 software on the
planet, but I wouldn't be any richer.

> In any case, Copyrights of digital materials (music/programs/
> graphics) are likely to be high on the legislative agenda in
> the near future.  Perhaps it will work out to satisfy us all.

That's good. They need to be. We need to have a law that is apppropriate for
software just as is available for books, music, etc...

Arkain