Re: END THIS!!

[The Blue Meanie <bluemeanie@quality.net>]

Jesus, I can't stand this anymore!  I can't believe I've been enticed
into actually CONTRIBUTING to this godforsaken thread, but I can't stay
silent any longer.
   The abandoned car thing is probably the most intelligent discussion about
this topic yet, so I guess I'll speak to it.

Steve White wrote:
> (Tilghman Lesher) wrote:
> > A better argument would be a comparison to the following scenario:
> >         Are you justified in accusing a drifter of theft
> >         for a car which I abandoned 5 years ago, and that
> >         I no longer acknowledge that a) it exists, or
> >         b) it is mine?
> >         Similarly, can he be accused of theft of software
> >         for which the company does not acknowledge either
> >         knowledge or ownership?
> >         Yes, if he steals the car while I still am using it,
> >         it indeed is theft, and he should be punished for
> >         that.  But after I've abandoned it?
> 
> Bad analogy.
> If you abandon a car, you no longer claim ownership.
> 
   NO.  GOOD analogy.  Abandonment of a car does NOT rescind ownership.  If
you have a title, you have ownership.  PERIOD.  Just like Copyright Law.
You hold a Copyright, you own it.  PERIOD.  However, there is a caveat...
(see below)

> If you copyright software, it's yours. The copyright is explicit title.
> Even if you no longer market the software actively, it's still yours. In
> your analogy, the car is up on blocks and without tires, but it's still in
> your front yard.
>
   True.  If the car were on blocks and rusting in my front yard, I would
STILL not want someone to steal it, no matter how big a piece of **** it
was.

> If the company wishes not to "acknowledge either knowledge or ownership",
> fine, it can renounce its rights and make the software freeware. Those
> individuals who would like this to happen are free to contact software
> publishers and persaude them to renounce their rights. Some publishers
> will cooperate.
> 
   Here is where car abandonement and Copyright part ways.  If the car were
left somewhere not in the jurisdiction of the owner (like a parking lot,
side of the road, etc.) instead of the owner's front yard, the law allows
for a "title search" for whoever takes "possesion" of the car.  If you make
a concerted effort, including contacting the DMV for the last known address
of the title holder, and a minimum of 2 (sometimes 3) public announcements
of intent to apply for title, and the current title owner does not step
forward and assert ownership of the vehicle, it is then titled to the person
applying for the "title search".  At this point, ALL legal recourse of the
previous owner in null and void.

   I believe that software Copyrights for "obsolete" programs needs just
such a provision (currently none exists) whereby if someone contacts a
Copyright Holder, and said Holder either denies ownership or does not
actively assert ownership of the Copyright, it may be allowed to lapse into
public domain.  Additionally, if the actual Copyright Holder no longer
exists (deceased, dissolved corporation, etc.) and the legal heir to said
Copyright refuses to accept it or actively assert ownership, the same lapse
into Public Domain should occur.  In the rare case of a Copyright Holder
acknowledging the Copyright AND refusing to renounce it, it should be LEFT
ALONE!  Let them kill their own product!  But we need to get the law to
equate "failure to acknowledge either knowledge or ownership on the part of
the legal owner" with recision of said ownership.
   Until such provision exists, we are bound BY LAW to sit by and watch this
"car" that to US has value, rot in quiet desperation and pass into oblivion,
with nobody stepping forward to legally claim it, while all those who WISH
to claim it are unable to do so legally.

   So, YES: we, as appreciators of classic technology, are doomed to be
bound by laws that give self-righteous people the opportunity to take the
absolute LETTER OF THE LAW and drill it into our skulls.  The cold fact is
that they're RIGHT as far as the law reads.  So are the people on the
freeway driving 65 and pissing all of us off.  Please don't try to convince
them they're not.
   <Note to the self-righteous lawbook-beaters (and you know who you are):
If you have had even a SINGLE speeding ticket in your life, please take your
Copyright preaching and SHUT THE HELL UP, NOW!!!  I pay my speeding tickets
when I get them and I will gladly face the law if busted for Copyright
violation.  And I will make no apologies for doing so.  But you are nothing
more than a pot calling the kettle black, as I doubt each and every one of
you has never violated any law on any book.>
   And if you violate Copyright Law (or you drive 66 or faster on the
freeway), be prepared to accept the consequences if you are caught by the
law.  But please don't try to tell me or the Copyright preachers you're
legal, because you aren't.  And don't try to justify it.  You can't.
Neither can I, nor the hundreds of others who get to work faster at 75+
every day on the freeway, or have non-original Apple II software.  Period.
   <Note to the self-righteous law-breaking pirates (you know who you are as
well): Just go back to what you were doing, okay?  Don't whine about the
laws you don't like.  Act to change them.  Until then, they're there -
whether you abide by them or not.>

   Now, will you all take your toys (and soapboxes) and go home!  I'd like
to hear some more talk about cool Apple II computers.

flames > /dev/null

The (exasperated) Blue Meanie

PS: Who's willing to put their action where their mouth is?  Let's start a
campaign to make "refusal to acknowledge ownership of a Copyright" by its
legal owner equate to "recision of said Copyright".  That's the ONLY legal
way to end this.