Re: Net piracy?

[jeffr@bmerha2a.bnr.ca (Jeffrey Robertson)]

Hi:  Somebody posted recently that this discussion is not going to
     get very far as long as we still can't decide on terms, and
     agree on how the law applies to each.  I'm responding to this
     article largely because I want to get my position defined.
     After this, I'll shut up until some consensus has been
     reached on both terminology and the law.
     (Any lawyers present who wish to definitively describe
      copyright law will be a godsend.)

In article <30f0ne$pmk@blackice.winternet.com>,
Richard Wifall <rwifall@NMSU.edu> wrote:
>In article <30ecmp$7pj@bmerha64.bnr.ca> jeffr@bmerha2a.bnr.ca (Jeffrey Robertson) writes:
>
>>   In article <30a240$t5q@blackice.winternet.com>,
>>   Richard Wifall <rwifall@NMSU.edu> wrote:
>>   >In article <306ev5$jko@bmerha64.bnr.ca> jeffr@bmerha2a.bnr.ca (Jeffrey Robertson) writes:
>>   >>   complexity (due to memory size) -- forget it.  They only value of the
>>   >>   program is for itself, not for the techniques behind it.
>>   >	Thats interesting, considering you can patent computer
>>   >algorithms.  I guess the government doesn't agree with you.
>>   I'm talking about these _particular_ programs, not programs in general.
>>   Sheesh.  Credit me with some intelligence.  Heck, _read_ the blasted post;
>>   I said as much the first time.
>
>	If you are talking about particular programs, perhaps you
>should have named one?  (You never once have.  At least not in the
>posts that I replied to.) 

Hopefully this will clear up any confusion:  The "particular programs"
I am referring to are what we loosely call "Lost Classics".  Typically,
these are many years old, and out of "print".  The copyright holder has
vanished from the face of the earth, or has moved on to other enterprises.
Now, we are focusing on the Apple II here, and in the foregoing discussion
it was suggested that part of the inherant value of these abandoned
programs was that the owner was re-using techniques in current programs,
ala SHRConvert.  My argument was that the techniques behind these old
Apple programs have little value today:  The clever algorithms hinge on
squeezing code into 48K, coaxing music out of a softswitch, etc.
Thus, the value of the program now is as a complete entity, not for any
of its parts.

Now, although I didn't address this before, if one of those lost classics
actually used a patented algorithm, then it would not be a patent infringement;
that requires writing another program using the algorithm.  As far as
using the patent arguement to prove the value of an algorithm:  yes, in
theory.  However, my argument (I believe) shows that it doesn't always hold.

>I don't give anyone anymore credit then I
>feel they deserve by reading their posts.

Then you must be used to people feeling insulted by your comments.
Assume a base level of competence in people, and then adjust your
estimate based on observations.  Personally, I set that base pretty
high for people I meet on the net.

>
>>   >>   Again, this all comes down to the nature of copyright law.  It's up to
>>   >>   the holder to enforce it.  To use this silly couch analogy, leaving th
>>   >>   couch on the sidewalk is _not_ abandoning it.  Not complaining when it
>>   >>   stolen _is_.
>>   >	So its ok for me to walk into the local grocery store and
>>   >steal whatever I can manage as long is they don't notice?  That _is_
>>   >what you are saying.  Pardon me for disagreeing with you  (since you
>>   >seem to take offense to that) but stealing is wrong whether you caught
>>   >or not. 
>>
>>   Is there anyone else stupid enough to think this is my position?
>
>[This is great.. Lets take a look at a another post by Jeff]
>
>>This law really is a case of the 11th Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Get Caught.)
>>If you're not caught, no crime was committed.
>
>	You say that I "am stupid to think this is your position" and
>then you go and say that it _IS_ your position in a different post?
>Holy split personalities Batman!
>
>(I apologize for actually reading peoples posts.  I realize that you
>don't, but someone has to do it.)

Let's try to avoid slander, shall we?  The so-called 11th Commandment is
meant to apply at all times.  (e.g murder's OK; don't get caught.)
But copyright law works that way.  Copying copyright material is legally,
if not morally, OK as long as you don't get caught.  

Some people make tapes of friends' CDs.  This is a copyright violation.
To them, it is morally acceptable.  The record company doesn't bother
them, mostly because it doesn't know about it.  But when it hears about
a major pirating ring, it shuts them down.  Now, (and this is important)
if it heard about the ring, but did nothing, it's given tacit permission.
If it later prosecutes a different ring, those guys could use as a
defense the fact that the company was not defending their copyright.
That's why some holders (e.g. United Features Syndicate, in the case of
Charles Schultz) diligently prosecutes even the slightest infraction,
since they have to demonstrate their interest in the copyright.

That's why I say that if you're not caught for a copyright violation,
you have't broken the law.  Not just in the pragmatic sense that nothing's
going to happen to you, but in the legal sense that it shows the holder
is (apparently) not interested in enforcing the copyright and was
effectively putting the program in the public domain.

As I've said before, trying to map copyright law examples into "real
world" examples is almost impossible.  But to give it another go:
If you steal a lawn chair from someone's front yard, they will certainly
notice the loss.  If they say, "So what, it's only $5" and don't report
it to the police, wait n years, and have a change of heart, they can't
go after you, since you're protected by the statute of limitations.
The law says you're OK.  Some people (myself included) would say that
you're still a thief.  This is a moral issue.  The morality of 
copyright infringement is a whole separate issue.  My position:  pirating
a lost classic is OK; pirating "living" software never is.

>
>[Also from that other post]
>>                                               If you were caught,
>>then you're (likely) ordered to cease and dessist, and pay
>>reparations.
>
>	Actually you'll be getting a visit from your prosecutor,
>because guess what?  Copyright violation is a criminal offense.  But
>then I don't suppose you would know that since you admit not knowing
>much about copyright laws. (See further below)
>
>
>>   I'm sorry, I've tried to be civil in my posts on this topic, but this guy
>                                                                     ^^^^^^^^
>>   is clueless.  My whole argument is based on the simple _fact_ that
>                                                           ^ OPINION
>>   piracy is a software violation and not a theft.  Now either address that
>>   argument (as my more intelligent opponents have) or SHUT UP!
>
>	If your arguement is based on that opinion, then why the hell are
>you comparing it to _STEALING_ a couch?  I have only being replying to
>other peoples statements and pointing out what I see wrong with them.
>	I am also saying that I disagree with your statement that
>piracy is not stealing.  I'm not about to shutup because I don't agree
>with you.  I'm sorry that my arguements are apparently so effective
>that you must resort to calling me names.

I didn't call you any names: I said you were uninformed.  We're back to
the question of "is pirating copyright violation or theft?".  See my preamble.
(Oh, and I wasn't the one who used the couch analogy.)

>[A bunch of stuff nuked here that wasn't flame bait (Amazing isn't it?)]
Oh come on.  I'd like to think that I'm addressing this issue
calmly.  Your previous post got me frustrated, but I hardly flamed you.
I'd be interested in knowing if other readers feel the same way.

>>   Actually, this thread proves a lot of people don't understand
>>   copyright law, but shows little about the value people attach to it.
>
>	You are correct sir. It does show that people don't
>understand the copyright law.  Lets see, what did you have to say
>about that?
>[from a different post by Jeff, the "you" refers to Ian Schmidt]
>>I'd like to say I don't think you, or any of the folks who
>>have been posting with the same opinion are ignorant, except perhaps
>>insofar as you are unclear on some of the points on copyright law,
>>which I myself know only a little about.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	Are you trying to tell me that I don't know something about
>copyright laws when you yourself admit that you know very little about
>them? 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  That fact notwithstanding,
I _do_ feel qualified to discuss the subject.  I know "a little":
I'm an informed layman; a lawyer would know "something", and a
copyright lawyer would know "a lot".  I include disclaimers like
the above to show intellectual honesty, and to solicit clarification
from people who _are_ experts in the area.

>Richard Wifall - rwifall@nmsu.edu - http://starship.nmsu.edu:6502/

Well, if anyone is still reading this thing: thanks.  I've wasted
too much time arguing whether pirating is a copyright violation
or theft.  I feel very confident that my understanding of the issue
is correct.  Since I'm tired of arguing the point with other laymen,
I won't clog the net further on the subject until a real lawyer
can cite chapter and verse.

Until the discussion moves beyond this point, I remain,
-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------+-----------------
Jeffrey Robertson                    |  jeffr@bnr.ca  |      BNR, Ottawa
"I speak for myself, not BNR" - Me   +----------------+       (Meriline)
"Verbing weirds language" - Calvin                      OC-48 FiberWorld