Re: Copyright

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Donald L Johnson writes ...
> 
> Rubywand replied to a posting of an ISDA FAQ item:
 ....
>  >It is perfectly okay to copy out-of-print software
>  >so long as the copyright owner has not objected or, reasonably, is not
>  >likely to object. Telling some questioner otherwise is a severe
>  >disservice.
 ....
> 
> Man, you just don't get it, do you, Rubywand?  That's not their opinion,
> it's the commonly-held interpretation of the law.  My uncle the Missouri
> Appellate judge, my cousin-in-law the lawyer, and a whole bunch of other
> California lawyers I know all say the same thing.
 ....

     Rather vague; besides, in this case, neither the questioner nor the ISDA is
talking about legality.

     If you will read the ISDA FAQs excerpt, you will observe that the question
about copying old software asks 'Is it okay?'. So, we have a 'right or wrong',
'good or bad' question.

     The ISDA response is to say "No" and, then, quote information about the
duration of copyrights. Essentially, the ISDA is saying that being out-of-print
does not end the copyright and, so, unauthorized copying is copyright infringement.

     The ISDA excerpt includes no claim that copying out-of-print software is
"illegal". Logically, were copying out-of-print software a direct violation of some
law specifying penalties, etc., one would expect a brief observation that the old
software copyrights remain in effect followed by an emphasis upon the particular
law. The "No" would be backed by the assertion that 'you should not break the law'.
It is the way anyone would respond, _if_ copying out-of-print software were
actually illegal. Of course, it is not illegal.

     Instead, what we have is simple copyright infringement and ISDA's implied
assertion that copyright infringement is bad. ISDA may be a fine organization; but,
it is not the arbiter of individual copyright holder privileges nor the legally
instituted agency for defining copyright holder responsibilities.


     Whether uploading or downloading a particular piece of software is "okay" or
"not okay" depends upon what the copyright holder says or, failing a direct
expression of wishes, whether or not there is reason to believe the copyright
holder's benefits from the software might be damaged.

     For example, it would be "not okay" to upload some current commercial product
of Seven Hills; and, finding such an item on the net, it would be "not okay" to
download and use the product. This would be true for earlier (out-of-print)
versions of, say, Spectrum, as well, because, in this particular case, it is
reasonable to believe that this would harm sales of the current version.

     On the other hand, unless the copyright holder objects, it is generally "okay"
to download and enjoy out-of-print games like Wizardry, Ultima, etc.. There is no
reason to believe the copyright holder objects or will be damaged-- in fact, just
the opposite.



Rubywand