Re: Asimov performs a valuable service; so why fight over it

[jimw@vosaic.com (Jim Wong)]

In article <3545A6AA.A3A574F4@swbell.net>, rubywand@swbell.net wrote:

>      The basic idea behind copyright law is to hand the copyright owner
> a 'loaded gun' with which to defend his/her rights to a product.
> 
>      In cases of  blatant production of 'knock offs' and international
> treaty violations the law enforcement authorities will, often, act
> against copyright violations under associated law.
> 
>      Otherwise, it is standard practice to let the copyright owner
> decide whether or not he/she disapproves of the treatment of his/her
> property and whether or not to call upon the legal system for action.
> The copyright holder is the first legal 'court' in matters involving
> his/her property.
> 
> 
>      You have shown, neither in specific fact no via logic, that any
> copyright holder experiences loss or is damaged by the archiving of old
> out of print Apple II software. You have quoted no instance of any
> specific product being archived against the will of a copyright holder.
>

Copyright violations are copyright violations, regardless of whether the
copyright holder bears some kind of loss, financial or otherwise.  The law
grants creators/licensees of a work more or less complete control over how
that work may be reproduced and distributed.  You can blather all day
about injury and loss, but it doesn't change the essential character of
the matter: redistributing software via an FTP site without the copyright
holder's permission is illegal.

Furthermore, the failure of a copyright holder to seek out and confront
people who have stolen his intellectual property does not constitute tacit
approval of said theft.  It is the pirate's responsibility to seek
permission, not the owner's responsibility to prevent theft.