Re: Another Modest Proposal: Pirating vs Archiving

[Michael Dobropolski <mikead@concentric.net>]

Nathan Mates wrote:

> >I know you (Nathan) are aware of this (in Copyright-FAQ): While all
> >information in this article is believed to be correct at the time of
> >writing, this article is for educational purposes only and does ot
> >purport to provide legal advice.  If you require legal advice, you
> >should consult with a legal practitioner licensed to practice in your
> >jurisdiction.
> 
>    Yes, but it's a darn good start for judging things. If some of the
> arguments given ("Copyright has expired on XYZ") are demonstratably
> contradicted by the FAQ, then it's likely that they'd be found wrong
> in court also. I have no plans or desire to try and show that the
> FAQ is wrong, but if you wish to, go ahead.
> 
> >All this copyright stuff was not given to Moses. There is room for
> >plenty of discourse on these matters. Legal application changes from
> >case to case. Your postings are opinions, no more, no less. You are
> >not unconditionally right, right, right. Even the lawyers are not and
> >don't pretend to be. If you are looking for the unchanging, the simple
> >right-and-wrong, you won't find it in law.
> 
>    If you break the speed limit the day before it's increased, wil the
> cops still pull you over? A good chance. A month before? Fairly
> certain. A year? Most definitely. Will they write you a ticket even if
> you claim to have a time machine and say that you were not breaking
> int he laws of a the future? Heck yes. This boils down to the simple
> fact: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE LAWS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME
> AND PLACE OF THE CRIME, OR YOU WILL FACE THE LEGAL SYSTEM.
> 
>    Wishful thinking may lead you to believe that in 15 years, the
> courts may may declare Asimov as it currently stands 100%
> legal. Problem is, Asimov as it stands right now is not, and is
> capable of being charged under the law.
> 
> Nathan Mates

Anyway, (not tomorrow, not years from now, no time machines) 
the changing of law is not really temporal. Actions, that 
are as identical as we can have as interacting social 
beings, can get one perpetrator heavy sanctions, another 
will never be charged, another will be charged and 
acquitted, and so forth, all on the same day. It really is 
case by case and the question here is how good of an idea is 
it for the government or an individual to charge asimov or 
others with copyright violations. Right now you can find 
lawyers who would say that, in the case of asimov, it is a 
good idea; and of course, others that would say it is not.
It really is a matter of opinion, and interesting to dicuss 
as long as we refrain from absolutes in questions of law 
(and in numerous other areas where absolutes do not apply 
and we get dangerously close to Godwin's Law).