Re: Asimov Mirror Sites ... and the illegality myth

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Jeff Blakeney writes ...
> 
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 22:49:02 -0500, Roy and/or Janet Miller
> <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> 
 .... 
> Just so you know, in the US, that isn't necessarily the case anymore.
> 
> There was a law passed in 1998 that allows authorities to charge
> people with a criminal offense for illegally distributing copyrighted
> material whether there is any money involved or not and without having
> to involve the copyright owners.
 ....

     You have made an error in logic. "Whether there is any money involved or
not" relates to the mode of distribution, not to value of the item distributed.
What the law does is to remove the need for payment in order to demonstrate
commercial value. It does not eliminate the usual requirement that the
distributed item have tangible commercial value.

     For example, the law you reference would not apply to free distribution
of, say, an oldie like Wavy Navy. Wavy Navy is presumed to have no commercial
value, the distribution does not obviously damage the property, and there is no
charge for downloading.
     
     Yes, law enforcement authorities will, if so requested by a copyright
owner, act to halt unauthorized free distribution of no-commercial-value
items-- i.e. the distributor will be told to cease and desist. Whether or not
some damage needs to be made good is left to the owner to decide and, if
desired, to pursue in civil courts.


     The purpose of the newer anti-piracy law is to strengthen protection of
commercially valuable software products in response to the explosion of the
internet. The law seeks to discourage such internet practices as malicious free
distribution and use of the products as freebie attractions to build traffic.

     Three important factors are involved:

o- The wrongly distributed products have established real commercial value. It
is important to society that commerce in such products not be ruined by
thievery.

o- Via the net, a lot of damage can be done in a relatively brief time.
Removing the requirement for notification from/counseling with the copyright
owner helps to limit damage and increases the immediacy of the enforcement
threat to would-be pirates.

o- Unauthorized distributions of commercially valuable products are usually
easy to identify-- i.e. a law to oppose the distributions is reasonably easy to
enforce.


     Basically, you have a need for protection of something valuable. At the
same time, a law which affords this protection is enforceable independent of
rights owner complaints. So, you have the law.


     None of the conditions mentioned above hold for old, out-of-print
software. Society, through Law, has nearly zero stake in protecting such
property beyond honoring the copyright 'contract' to the extent of enforcing
cease and desist orders.

     There is, per se, no law against freely distributing old software with no
obvious commercial value. Doing so is no more illegal than walking across a
neighbor's yard to get to a bus stop. In these and countless similar situations
where liberties are taken with private property, nothing illegal can happen
until the owner says "stop it" and the one taking liberties refuses to comply.

     So long as the archives which distribute old Apple II software comply with
the express wishes of rights owners, they are operating entirely within the
Law. This is not the case for those who routinely attack these archives.
Despite being repeatedly informed of the facts, they persist in libeling the
archives with charges of "piracy" and harass ISP's which host the archives.
These persons should cease their illegal behavior.




Rubywand