Re: Apple II Reference Manual ("Red Book")

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <8dhskv$s43$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
Andy McFadden <fadden@netcom.com> wrote:
 
> In article <8dh1kp$rli$1@merope.saaf.se>,
> Paul Schlyter <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote:
>> Depends on your values.  Was it wrong to try to blow Adolf Hitler to
>> pieces a few years before the end of WW II ????  Of course, when trying
>> to kill people like that, those who want to take revenge on you won't
>> bother to prosecute -- they'll just kill you or torture you, if
>> they can.
> 
> Apples & oranges (so to speak).  However, this is getting *waaay* off topic.
 
True -- but I didn't bring up the topic of whether it's OK til kill
horrible people.  It's fine with me to drop that subject.
 
>>> I think you'll run into trouble if you start evaluating actions
>>> based primarily on whether or not you'll be prosecuted.
>>> 
>>> OTOH, I believe you're correct that Apple has no interest in the material
>>> itself.  A re-issue would have little value.
>> 
>>Which is the main point really.  If you break the copyright of
>>something which has lost all commercial value, and which not even the
>>creator is interested in anymore, and if you, in addition, runs
>>little risk of being prosecuted for it, you must have the mind of a
>>die-hard lawyer if you want to claim it's wrong solely because it's
>>technically illegal.
> 
> It's not technically illegal, it *is* illegal.
 
If you so wish -- however illegal and immoral are not equivalent.
Apples & oranges so to speak.
 
> You might think it has no value to the copyright holder, and I may be
> in full agreement, but it's not for us to decide.  Only the holder of
> the copyright can choose the disposition of the material.
 
True -- and I think any sensible person wouldn't decide this on a
whim, but base their decision on the actions, or absence of actions,
from the copyright holder.  ONe can for instance ask the copyright
holder if one can buy the copyrighted item, and how much it will
cost -- the type of response, or even the absence of a response,
from the copyright holder will tell you something about his interest
in the product.
 
> For example: it is possible, though unlikely, that Apple has sold the
> rights for the Red Book to some die-hard Apple II type who thinks he or
> she will make a mint issuing new copies of the book.  The trouble is,
> neither you nor I know for sure what the current state of the
> intellectual propery is, so we can't make an informed decision.
 
That's a fact about the real world: we are oftne forced to make
decisions based on incomplete or even erroneous information.
 
But in the case you mention above, would that really apply to already
printed copies of the Red Book?  Wouldn't one expect such a person to
reprint the book instead, trying to sell new copies?
 
> That's why the copyright law doesn't include a "maybe it's okay" if
> you think it's worthless clause (at least, not in the USA).  Look at
> it from another perspective: if the material had no value, then nobody
> would have any interest in it.  Since some people *do* have an interest,
> the material *does* have value, and the copyright holders are being
> robbed.
 
Not necessarily -- try to offer the item for sale, and see how much
you'll sell.....
 
> (That the copyright holders don't recognize the value, or realize
> they are being robbed, is a separate issue in which we can become
> bogged down for quite some time.)
 
You're definitely twisting the meaning of the word "robbed" here.
First, since they didn't plan to sell it anyway, they didn't lose
anything.  Second, robbery isn't merely theft -- robbery is theft
combined with physical violence, or threats of physical violence,
towards the victim -- that's why the punishment for robbery is
considerably harder than the punishment for the theft of the same
value.
 
>>Of course the value of the copyrightesd stuff and the risk of being
>>sued if you break the copyright are related: if it's not worth
>>anything no-one will bother to sue, but if it's worth a lot people
>>will be very eager to sue.
> 
> True.  However, this gets back to my original point: not being sued
> is not the same as not being wrong.
 
On the other hand, being wrong or not being wrong is quite often a
value judgement.  I mean, if you break a copyright, but nobody gets
hurt, nobody loses any money or property, and nobody even objects, I
don't think one can say that's "wrong".
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch