Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

["Quantum_Cat" <anonymous@cotse.com>]

Hiya, Arkain,

 *>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.

Well, I didn't make any promises.  ;)

 *>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 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.  ;)

 *>>  *>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.

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.

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?

 *>> 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.  ;)

 *>>  *>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.

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.

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

 *>> 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.

Which is why I try to limit my tirades to Copyright 
offenders.  ;)

 *>> 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?

 *>>  *>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....

I'm so contrary.  ;)  Is it nearly impossible because you 
don't want to be bothered to make an effort?

 *><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."

We have other reasonable folks here.  They've been slammed by 
the "opposition", and in the case of Nathan Mates, "run him 
off".

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

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?

 *>>  *>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*.

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".

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?  ;)

 *>> 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.  ;) 

 *>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.

Sorry for the formatting screwup there..

Check out:

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/circ92.html

You'll find the criminal code there.

 *>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.

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.  

*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...

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

 *>>  *>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.

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.  
;)

 *>>  *>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.

Uh.. OK.  So Ted Bundy got a raw deal because he helped 
Granny across the street once?

 *>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!

Not as many as you make out.  DO check out the actual Act, 
Arkain..  Particularly: Chapter 5.

 *><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.

Ah, but I'm NOT in the same hole as Tom...err.. Charles.  I 
DON'T steal software and put up pirate ftp sites.  ;)

 *>>  *>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.

Yet you are willing to overlook the fact that he lies and 
steals other people's efforts?  Defense lawyers would LOVE 
you on a jury.  You'd convict no one.

*snip* 

 *>>
 *>> 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.

Darn.. does that mean I don't get the prize? ;)

 *>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?

Extentuating circumstances?  Perhaps.  But those only lessen 
a conviction.  They don't spring a Turlette from all razzing.

 *>>  *>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".

You don't like my metaphor?  Aside from the fact that Turley 
is an (ex?)crackhead, and that permitting piracy in the open 
is like ignoring the crackhouse on the corner, I think it 
fits well.  Of course, you are entitled to differ in opinion. 
;)

 *>>  *>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...

Sigh.. but YOU get to determine what "makes sense".  If 
everyone gets to have that same right, Arkain, that property 
you're not using will be long gone.

 *>> 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.

HUH? "that care about their rights"?  Get off it, Arkain.  
They are designed to protect the rights of ALL!  Those who 
don't care are a subset of that.  

 *>*** 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.

Yep.  Pointing out that it is ridiculous to expect perfection 
of folks pointing out the illegal behaviour of others 
(biblical statements not withstanding).

 *>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?

I am taking the copyright law literally, Arkain.  It's 
probably best to do so with laws.  ;)

 *>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.

You will find such amendments in the Computer Fraud and Abuse 
Act of
1986, and Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, 
title VIII of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990.

Yes.  There are provisions.

 *>Your statement about extreemes admits that there are 
reasonable
 *>limits in how a law can and/or should be applied. For me, 
that

Nope.  I was addressing limits on your assertion that one 
must be perfect before calling someone a thief.  Go back and 
reread that portion of my post.

 *>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.

It would be nifty for you to post the URL.  After all, it 
would be returning the courtesy. ;)

 *>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.

I insist that YOU and the TURLETTES are not the ones to 
determine the reasonable limits, Arkain.  Got it?

 *>>  *>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.

 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

         (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance 
with this
	 title, in original works of authorship fixed in any 
tangible 	 medium of expression, now known or later developed, 
from 	 which they can be perceived, reproduced, or 
otherwise 	 	 communicated, either directly or with the 
aid of a machine
	 or device.

Oh?  What part of "any" don't you understand?  Or original 
works of authorship?

 *>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.

pirate n. 3. A person who approriates without right the work 
of another.

That appears to be you, Arkain.

 *>> 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...

But why do I get the feeling you won't like these results any 
better, and will continue your "reasonable" stealing?  Hmmm?

 *>Arkain

Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat