Re: A2 Trade/Swap ... site ...

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Rubywand wrote:

>
> > > o- rights owners benefit from having their oldies available for
> > >    downloading
> >
> > Prove it.
>  ....
>
>      A prima facie case has been made (several times, including in some recent
> posts) based upon logic. You can look up and examine the arguments in the
> newsgroup archives. Feel free to present a logical argument to the contrary.

Look, I'll try to be respectful here, but that argument is very similar to the
arguments of the scholastics prior to the development of the scientific method. Do
robins lay three eggs or four? Don't present logical arguments, climb a tree and
look. Do it again and again until you have enough data that you can say that
robins normally lay a certain number of eggs. It's the same thing here. You have
made an assertion. You claim it is a fact. Yet you present no evidence, only a
logical argument.  Logic, divorced from evidence, is just day dreaming.

>
> > >
> > > o- of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of rights
> > >    owners with software on these sites, the number who
> > >    have requested that a product be removed is probably
> > >    less than ten.
> >
> > Prove it. And, while you're at it, prove that the other rights
> > owners know that their
> > software is on there, and that they don't care.
> >
>
>      Silly. First, no one ever claimed that all of the rights owners know
> their wares are available for free downloading. The only significant claim is
> that, as a rule, owners who know do not mind and that there is no reason to
> expect that those who may not know would object.

What owners know, and don't care? Which ones have you contacted, informed that on
(Asimov is it? I honestly don't know) a site is a copy of their software free for
the downloading, and they said they didn't care? Or even ignored your notice?

>
>      The arrangement has existed for years and is well established. If you
> want to change it, supply evidence that a change is necessary.

The fact that copyright violations has existed for years is no excuse for
continuing it.

> > >
> > >
> > > > "Vogons" are not so dumb as
> > > > to think that they will change the minds of Tom, Rudy, Ruby, et al,
> > >
> > >      Unfortunately for the vogon anti-archive wrecker types, the "et al"
> > > includes most of the Apple II users in the known universe. Pestering us,
> > > especially pestering us with bogus arguments, is definitely dumb.
> >
> > That's a laugh.
>  ....
>
>      Laughing about pestering users is not an especially bright behavior.
>

The laugh, as was obvious to anyone who can read at the level of an American
newspaper, was your statement of a "bogus argument". So, you not only didn't
respond to my argument, you tried to distort my words, as you have the arguments
of many others. Furthermore, it is a laugh that, "the "et al"
> > includes most of the Apple II users in the known universe." While it is true
that among the posters here, those who value private property, and
constitutionally guaranteed rights are in the minority, you have no proof (once
again) for the above statement. You might be right, you might be wrong, but you
haven't, and can't, backed up your statement with facts.

>
> > >
> > > > or vice versa.
> > >
> > > Since the people you are calling "vogons" do not have a coherent ethical
> > > or legal position-- like when has Jeff B ever slammed his vogon pal's
> > > Bernie site for promoting ROM code rip-offs?-- there is always a chance
> > > of change based upon pure self-interest.
> >
> > 1) I'm not calling them "vogons" - the word is in quotes,
>  ....
>
>      Nevertheless, it is the sole distinctive term of collective reference
> presented without in-context contradiction. You used the term because you knew
> most readers would understand to whom it refers.

I used the term, because it is the derogatory term that you use to refer to those
who try to encourage people to have respect for the copyright owners. Have you
ever read Lord of the Rings? In paperback? Have you ever seen the paragraph by
Tolkien complaining about the copyright violation of that work? In that paragraph,
he called for respect, at least for living authors. Jeff, and the rest of us
"vogons" are simply doing the same. Show respect to the men and women who created
these software works of art. if they wish to give permission for wholesale copying
of their work, then bless them, but until they do, follow their last published
wish - the copyright notice.

>
>
> > 2) Jeff doesn't even "slam" you or Tom or Rudy. Why would he slam a
> > friend?
>  ....
>
>      Yet another case of botched reference. Reread the statement. It speaks of
> slamming a web site, not an individual.

No, it is not a botched reference, you have, once again, twisted words to suit
your own position. Jeff isn't a "slammer". Of people or web sites (now who would
slam a web site? Hmmm?) He has discussed the issue of the IIgs ROM code elsewhere,
I'll not try to reproduce his remarks here. Further, there has already in the past
week been a logical, legal argument (with facts) concerning the use of ROM code by
those who have a legal right to use the code (i.e., those who own a machine.) In
the final analysis though, your argument here is reduced to, "But Johnny's doing
it, why can't I?" when "Johnny" in fact just might not be "doing it." Or because I
exceed the posted speed limit by 4 miles per hour, you feel justified in exceeding
it by 20 miles per hour. In that case, we are both in the wrong, but my
transgression of the law doesn't justify yours, nor is it as bad as yours, as
could be seen by the fines we would have to pay should we be caught and
prosecuted.

Roy