Re: Copyright

[CUTblakeney@home.com (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:29:53 GMT, bobryan9@my-deja.com wrote:

>Copyright law was probably originally drafted and passed as a way for a
>person or company to protect something they own so they could sell it
>and nobody could just copy it, claim it theirs, and then sell it
>themselves.  This would cut into the authors/companies profits.  It
>would be just plain unfair.  If you did the work, you should profit
>from it.  If somebody copies the software and sells it while you are
>selling it, it is stealing.

That is conjecture.  My guess is that you and I probably have about
the same chance of knowing why copyright law was created.  This is to
say that we can both make guesses but until one of us looks it up,
what either of us says doesn't mean anything.

>If a company or author no longer sells his/her/its software, what is
>copyright protecting?  It isn't protecting anything.  It is preventing
>people from using the product (if it isn't available used or
>commercially).  If somebody were taking all the old titles and claiming
>that they were their work and selling them with this claim, it would be
>stealing.

Copyright is protecting ownership.  Copyright isn't in place to
protect a copyright holders right to profit, but to protect their
rights of ownership.  Copyright is there to make sure people can't get
copies of someone's work without their permission.  Whether the
copyright holder gets to make a profit before giving their permission
is entirely up to them.  If they don't wish to make any profit and
still don't want to give people permission to have a copy of their
work, that is also their right.

Many people don't seem to understand this point.

>I am sure there are some people/companies that are stubborn and won't
>take the time or effort, however small it may be, to reclassify thier
>software.

That is their right.

>There is also the "I wrote it, it's mine, you can't copy it" view too.

That is also their right.

>But if nobody is saying they don't want it distributed, what is
>copyright protecting?

They did say they don't want it distributed and until they say
differently that original statement is still in effect.  The copyright
is still protecting the ownership rights of the copyright holder.

>I've found some extremely rare software (drivers for 1979 interfaces,
>etc) and I've been able to find people who worked on the project.  They
>are HAPPY to supply the software.

That tends to be a slightly different situation than what usually
gones on around here as the hardware is often useless without the
software and the software will do you no good if you don't have the
hardware.  Giving someone a copy of the software that doesn't have the
hardware means that they have an illegal copy but they can't use it so
they most likely won't keep it.  Giving someone a copy of the software
that does have the hardware would most likely be considered okay
because if they own the hardware, then they are legally entitled to
have the software.  This isn't a given however and it could still be
considered illegal so it is a touchy point.

>They are extremely pleased to know
>that someone has use for the work they did long ago.  Most of the time
>they will send disks by snail-mail and refuse offers for me to pay
>shipping!  Of the 5 or so rare programs I've obtained this way,
>copyright was never mentioned FIRST by the person I was in contact
>with.  A few times it would take a while for someone to email me back,
>and I'd worry that the person was concerned with copyright.  I would
>email them and ask them if this was the case.  In every case when I
>asked if they were ignoring me due to copyright, I received a reply to
>the effect of "What?  This software was released 18 or so years ago.
>The company now designs PC chips and software.  They don't even know
>what an Apple II is or that the company made this stuff back then.
>Besides, I worked on the project, the software is available, you have a
>use for it, and it is doing nobody any good sitting here on this dusty
>disk.  Give me your address"

Even if they worked on the project, that doesn't give them the right
to distribute it.  Only the copyright holder has the right to say what
can be done with that product as they are the ones who own it.  If
they worked on the project then they probably know who the copyright
holder is and might even know how to contact them so asking for a
reclassification or just to get a single copy might be a little easier
in these cases.

>If you want to complain about copyright, find a company whose software
>is illegaly on the net 2)contact them and let them know the situation 3)
>have them take action to remove the software.

You can also just contact their ISP and inform them of the user's
illegal activities but then that person will most likely just get
another account and continue their illegal activities.  You can also
contact the authorities directly and they might take action.  The
copyright holder doesn't need to be involved which is a good thing
seeing as so many copyrighted titles are being illegally distributed
and a lot of the copyright holders are difficult to track down to ask
them to take action or to reclassify their work.

>Just because something is illegal does not mean the law makes sense,
>even if it did a few years ago.

That is true and the law will get ammended at some point to fix it if
it is really unjust.  Copyright law has been changed in the past but
it was to make copyrights last longer, not to have them expire sooner
so that everyone and their brother can copy stuff to their hearts
content.

>Is it justice for a judge to uphold an unjust law?  Yes, he's doing his
>job.  No, he us upholding injustice.

It is not up to a single judge to instigate change in the legal system
by ignoring an unjust law so he must uphold that law until such time
as it gets changed.  It may be unfortunate at times but that is the
way the system works.  If the system didn't work that way, judges
would have too much power and could make rulings on their own which
could cause a lot more problems than we have now.

>There are copies of commercially available and still supported titles
>on the net.  Why don't you go take care of those?

Yes, there are a lot of them but here on comp.sys.apple2 we are
concerned with Apple II software and other Apple II related
copyrighted works.  Why would I spend my time and effort trying to
stop someone from illegally distributing PC or Mac software, music,
movies, books or whatever when I have no idea it is even happening
because I don't see it.  I don't read newsgroup related to those
things and I rarely visit web or FTP sites related to those things.
Let the people who do come across them on a regular basis deal with
that, there is plenty of copyright infringement right here for me to
deal with.

>The fact is that this is not a current piracy battle.  It is people who
>were damaged financially/emotionally when certain people pirated their
>stuff way back when.  It is a battle against one person.  Charles
>Turley.

Charles Turley is just one of the people responsible for illegally
distributing and or promoting illegal distribution of other people's
copyrighted works.  That is the main thing I have against him and the
same goes for a number of other people on this news group.

>Do you chase down somebody who turns without a signal, and
>harrass them?  Do you send them letters and give them hell?

No, but that is only because I don't know who they are or how to
contact them.  You do realize that some people do things without
realizing that they are illegal so informing them is sometimes a good
thing.  It means they might stop doing that activity and that might
save them from getting charged with an illegal act.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Blakeney - Dean of the Apple II University in A2Pro on Delphi     |
|                    Delphi Apple II Forums Web Pages                    |
| A2: http://www.delphi.com/apple2   A2Pro: http://www.delphi.com/a2pro  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+