Re: Another Modest Proposal: Pirating vs Archiving

[nathan@parka.winternet.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <31F64BBB.4A04@nowhere.gone>,
David Edwards  <none@nowhere.gone> wrote:
>I am using a friends account and put in the non-address so that he
>would not get e-mail on this subject because of me. I don't have
>e-mail yet (waiting for Juno disks to come in.)

   Not even formally set up, and you just can't wait to try and flame
me. Using a lot of stock arguments that look like they were recycled
out of some discussions from a month ago. You're just too much of a
chicken to sign your real name and pay for having your words
traceable.
> You have a lot of technical skill and know-how about Apples, but
>precious little in the way of dealing with people.

   And you have neither. As part of the technical skill, please be
sure to note that I will quote from the Copyright FAQ at
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/Copyright-FAQ/
to shoot you down again. [Hmmm. The second dork in a month that's
been totally clueless about copyrights. Coincidence? Maybe not...]

>As for the piracy issue, in the strictest sense, copying anything that
>is copyrighted is wrong. Technically. 

   And legally, except for the fair use doctrine. 

>Then again, it is up to the copyright holder to legally pursue someone
>who has violated their copyright. Not you, not me. I happen to feel
>that when an author of software is no longer actively producing,
>promoting, and selling any of his works, he has abandonded them.

   And you're a flaming nobody. Your opinions don't count for shit,
and don't give me any crap about "spirit of the law" either. The law
is the law. If you're going to try and attack me with it (and show
yourself to be dead wrong in the process), make sure you don't open
yourself open to be shown to be nothing more than a dipshit without
any knowledge of the subject in the process. Oh, that's right, you're
just in this for the flames, trying to show your testosterone level is
marginally higher than zero. Ain't working.


>You seem to be the type to draw a hard line in the sand on the
>issue. If so, you MUST also not: ever copy anything (unless you own
>the material in question or the rights to it) from TV (or cable) to
>videotape, music, never photocopy anything, you can't even copy down a
>quote from a book or magazine. Have you ever done any of these? If so,
>you are in violation (no matter how small the offense) of someone's
>copyright and have no right to subsequently judge others. You would
>then have no credibility to attack someone for copying software.

   It's called 'fair use' that allows minor things like that. In
scholarly research, you may quote excerpts from pieces of literature,
which allows the occasional photocopying. [The fact that pretty much
all university libraries have photocopiers scattered around _should_
have tipped you off that this might be legal. Oh, that's right, when
you reach puberty, you'll have college to look about 6-10 years after
that.]

   Further, provided you tape the commercials as well, you can legally
record off the air TV programs and keep them for up to two weeks,
allowing you to watch things at your convenience. For a clue on
copyrights (which you are _SEVERELY_ lacking in), please read the
FAQ as pointed to above. [Hint: the Fair Use section is in part 2.
Yes, the number after 1. No, the numbers you saw on Sesame Street
today were 70, 85, 67 75, 31 89 79 and 85.]

Nathan Mates



--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~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