Re: CD of all Files on Asimov

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <51ahj5$mvq@news.gate.net>, Louis Schulman <louiss@gate.net> wrote:

>This has nothing to do with stolen property.  Perhaps you are not
>familiar with the concept in real property known as "adverse
>possession".  Under this concept, if a person openly and adversely
>occupies the property of another, and the owner takes no action to
>evict the person in adverse possession, the occupant becomes the owner
>(usually after ten years).  No one but the real owner has grounds to
>object.

   [Tip: learn to press return every 70 characters, not 80+. Makes
it much easier to quote.]

   God, save the internet from people who took basic law classes in
High School or college and think they're experts now. Your argument is
so full of holes it's fun thinking of ways to begin.  But, I wouldn't
expect anything less from people who'll try and do anything to save a
sinking ship.

   Your argument is perfectly fine when talking about real estate.
Unfortunately, software is INTELLECTUAL property, and thus falls under
copyright law, not adverse posession. Therefore, let's take a look at
the usenet Copyright FAQ at
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/mirrors/faq/copyright/faq/   shall we?

   First, copyrights last authors lifetime PLUS 50 years. Therefore,
unless otherwise stated, all software at Asimov that was originally
sold is still copyrighted. Secondly, lack of enforcement does not make
a copyright expire. I quote from the copyright FAQ, part II:

---

There is a common belief that if someone infringes a copyright, and the 
copyright owner does not sue or otherwise put a stop to the infringement, 
the copyright is lost and the work goes into the public domain.  There is 
some pre-1988 law on this (e.g., Stuff v. E.C. Publications, 432 F.2d 143 
(2d Cir., 1965) and Transgo v. Ajac Transmission Parts, 768 F.2d 1001 
(9th Cir. 1985)), but it seems to derive mostly from the fact that the 
copyright holder had acquiesced in the publication of the work without 
notice back when notice was a requirement.  It was the publication 
without notice, and not the lack of enforcement, that actually worked to 
put the work in the public domain.  This is forfeiture of copyright, not 
abandonment.  Because the notice requirement is now gone from copyright 
law, these cases don't have much weight today.

---

   Thus, even anything written before 1988 with a Copyright notice
anywhere on it was covered by the old laws, as well as the new. 

>Fundamentally, the same is true of copyright.

   Fundamentally, you're full of shit, and I shouldn't be bothering
with you. However, if Asimov goes down, people should be absolutely
clear on it: It's going down because it's illegally distributing
software. End of story.

>Copyright owners who are being infringed by Asimov have the right to
>take action.  You do not.  You do not have any right to interfere with
>my access to Asimov, unless you own a copyright.

   The FBI has the powers to investigate all copyright infringements.
You're right, I don't have the right to take personal action against
asimov itself. However, I do have the right as a citizen to report a
crime to the FBI, and THEY can do all the action. 

>I think Asimov is a good thing.  I like it. I hope it prospers.  If it
>were a money- making venture, Asimov could probably sue you for
>interference with its business.

   If Asimov were legal, I wouldn't be campaigning against it. I've
demonstrated many times that it's not, so I have every right to
interfere with it. 

>I am sorry to have to disagree with you so violently, but I take this
>as you trying to steal a resource from me.  I also am aggravated that
>you can voice such a firm legal opinion, when you obviously don't know
>what you are talking about.

   I have every right to report a crack dealer. Yes, I'd be depriving
some druggies of a "resource." However, it's a "resource" they're not
legally entitled to posess, so it's not theft. You are not legally
entitled to posess crap from Asimov that you never bought, so my
taking stolen property away from software junkies is not theft.

   Further, I can voice legal opinions because I'm *RIGHT*. You
ain't. If and when you can conclusively demonstrate that the US
Copyright law (which is part of the Berne convention, and therefore
International copyright law as well) allows this, despite what the FAQ
says, go ahead. Problem is, nobody's ever done that. The law is NOT on
the side of asimov. When the FBI moves in, they will have every LEGAL
right to do so; tough shit for you punks.

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein