Re: Net piracy?

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

In article <CsxHGF.3Iv@mail.on-line.co.uk>,
Richard King <tombo@mail.on-line.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <94193.081120KCR103@psuvm.psu.edu>,
>>Ken Richardson  <KCR103@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>>>Not that I like to squeal as they say, but if there are sites containing
>>>copyrighted software presently still being sold, shouldn't we inform
>>>the SPA or something, the site manager, and take care of this problem or
>>>do we have to go back to copyprotection again?  Ken
>>
>>Who's "we"?  Please consider the fact that there is probably not too
>>much interest in the Apple II software you are developing/selling at the
>>moment.  People are interested in classics, great games - most of which 
>>have no distributor (and haven't had one for several years).  Maybe you
>>should let the people-who-are-allegedly-being-harmed-by-piracy speak
>>for themselves?
>>
>>-- Dave
>>
>>
>
>Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but theft is theft - no matter how
>little 'benefit' the true owners may be getting from their products,
[snip]
>Suggesting that people who have no direct concern should not involve
>themselves in preventing or discouraging crimes is like saying you
>shouldn't stop a murder if you, personally aren't being murdered.

First off, let's not get carried away and equate pirating a copy of
Raster Blaster with shooting someone.  Let's confine ourselves to
talking about theft.  We're actually talking about a really weird
kind of theft, too.  One that the law has yet to form very solid
precedents on.

A software pirate is stealing a copy of something.  Thus, he is not
depriving _anyone_ of the use of something.  What is _is_ doing is
depriving the author/publisher of compensation for owning/using a
copy.  (That owning/using vaugeness is an attempt to reflect the
uncertainty in the eyes of some commentators on the subject about
the distinction between owning a copy of something and the rights
implied by that, for example, only being able to use, but not
copy or modify.)

Now, in the case of discontinued software, it is nearly impossible
to compensate the publisher.  The intent of the publisher is
important.  If the product is no longer sold because the publisher
does not want it to be used, then pirating is absolutely wrong.
If it is discontinued because the publisher doesn't care anymore,
or doesn't think the product is worth the bother of selling, then
pirating starts looking a lot more justifiable.

Now, as far as applying the above theory to the real world, consider
the case of the guys who are interested in putting out a "Lost Classics"
CD ROM.  In my opinion, they should make every effort to contact
the publisher/licence holder/whatever of each piece of software,
and offer them a flat sum to buy the right to distribute the program
on the CD (only), or a royalty on each CD sold.  I'd expect most
companies to accept one of these choices.  If they refuse, then don't
include that program.

On the other hand, if the publisher cannot be contacted, just go
ahead and include it, with a note that no one could be reached.


In terms of applying EXISTING LAW to this problem, I believe we should
refer to copyright law.  My understanding is that if someone infringes
on your copyright, it's your job to complain.  (Not the job of some
watchdog to complain.  Such a watchdog _could_ contact the copyright
holder, but not file suit, etc.)  If you do not prosecute, then you
run the risk of losing the copyright.

I base this on an essay by Charles Schultz, who explained why his
agent's lawyers came down _hard_ on elementary schools putting on
the play "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown" without a licence.
Or why they issued a "cease and desist" on a guy with a picture
of Snoopy on his barn.  Basically, if they let the little guy go,
then they would have _no legal right_ to complain if a big guy
infringed.  (Their example was someone using Snoopy to endorse a
product or social cause.)

So, if the publisher of the software doesn't come after you, then
he is considered to have relinquished his copyright on the material,
and it is effectively in the public domain.


Well, this post is too long already.  If anyone can punch holes
in this off-the-cuff analysis, feel free.  I follow this newsgroup
as often as I can, but if you're really keen to tell me why I'm
wrong, you better use Email.

Cheers,
-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------+-----------------
Jeffrey Robertson                    |  jeffr@bnr.ca  |      BNR, Ottawa
"I speak for myself, not BNR" - Me   +----------------+       (Meriline)
"Verbing weirds language" - Calvin                      OC-48 FiberWorld