Re: A time for action...

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

Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
39805C1C.9DD35A49@inetnebr.com">news:39805C1C.9DD35A49@inetnebr.com...
> Arkain wrote:
>
> > Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote in message
> > 397F6350.D3338C1D@swbell.net">news:397F6350.D3338C1D@swbell.net...
> > >
> >
> > Whether or not the so-called "vogons" are hypocritical is not my
concern. A
> > rational vogon(may be an oxymoron... not sure yet)
>
> How about rational pirates?

Same. ;-)

> > will tell you that your
> > argument is akin to "If a tree falls in the woods...". It would look
like
> > this:
> >
> >     If a copyright agreement is violated and no one bothers to complain,
was
> > a law still broken?
> >
> > The rational answer is "Yes, but no one cares" in both cases. The
problem in
> > this group is that the "vogons" aparently *DO* care, at least enough to
> > complain when one of them isn't the one promoting the action.
>
> What we care about is that newbies know that some sites have copyrighted
> software available for download, and that they be made aware of that fact.
After
> that, what they do is really their own business isn't it? We also care to
see
> copyrighted software made into freeware, so anyone can use these software
works
> of art. Further, a few weeks ago, a legal argument was made, citing case
law, as
> to how, if you own a machine, using the firmware isn't a violation of
copyright
> law. Ruby knows about and has ignored that post - it undermines his wish
to
> paint "vogons" as hypocrites. We humans often ignore what goes against our
> prejudices.

The mistake is that you may be arguing with someone who refuses to see your
side. I can's say for sure and I don't care to comment any further on it. If
you happen to run into cases where people refuse to listen, then just stop
talking. After all, you can only help those who want to be helped.

> > Such a petty
> > argument makes no sense to me when dealing with stuff as old and
out-dated
> > as this.
> >
> > You're right. I just want to end these pointless arguments. The fact
that
> > I'm ready to wade through miles of legal red tape should tell you how
ready
> > I am to end this. Some people in the group have suggested that ignoring
them
> > will make them go away. Theere are only 2 flaws in that argument.
>
> A third - we won't go away. :-)
> Neither will the pirates. :-(

I wrapped that point up in the first 2.

> Besides, the arguments are pointless. Both sides have good points, and
sometimes
> lousy ones. The way to end the argument is to 1) stop violation
copyrights, and
> 2) get the copyright protection lifted; on as many works as possible. (For
the
> sake of newbies, AppleWorks would be really helpful - perhaps Apple would
> release it was II Easy Pieces? ;-)

The first one is about as likely to happen as the world ending before you
finish reading this sentence. The second one is the only real solution to
this otherwise annoying problem. Do I use copyrighted 15-20 year old
software that I never bought? YES. Do I care that it is copyrighted? YES.
Would I like to see the copyrights lifted? YES. If the rest of us can agree
that these statements are true in general for all of us, then we shouldn't
be discussing the problem anymore. Instead, we should discuss solutions,
preferrably on a case-by-case basis.