Re: I'll be at KansasFest 2010 - but you won't know me by sight :)

[wyeo <willieyeo@gmail.com>]

On Dec 3, 12:07 pm, IUnknown <stevement...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I *was* advocating at the time was a more relaxed status for
> 'abandonware'... you know, software where the copyright owners don't
> care, are dead or simply do not exist anymore...

But in real world, the "status" interpretation would have been
overwritten by the respective countries' Copyright Laws.
Fundamentally, the government dictates to everyone (in their
respective juristriction) what can and cannot be allowed. Unless you
have monies to fight against the government throught the court
system ...

Unless you manage to get yourself a seat in the government, and pushed
for the laws to be changed, and have it successfully changed.

Not that I don't support your stance, a "reasonable sunset clause" in
Copyright Laws would be great, but we should all obey laws, no matter
how stupid they are at times.

> Joe, Nathan and Richard felt that if the current copyright holder
> couldn't be found and contacted for an AFFIRMATIVE release as
> 'abandonware', it should be labeled as off limits.

What I felt is, they are right. A person just can't [legally]
distribute without expressed permission. The law is written that way
to protect a copyright owner's interest.

> I saw the futility in this.... there was no way that EA, Interplay,
> Origin, Apple, etc were EVER going to reclassify the software. The
> lawyers would take one look at the request, laugh and throw it in the
> round file.

Likewise it os true, but eventually you may be able to find out
reasons why they block it, e.g. Intellectual Property Rights, Re-
release of the game, etc etc etc...

BUT .. you still get those who are willing and have agreed to
reclassify their software status to copyrighted freeware !

> So I took a different path, and tried to convey my message to Nathan,
> Joe, etc.... to no avail.

Unfortunately, there will always be the different camps in their
stance.

Respectfully, they are also correct in their stance; but I'd support
your clause to the extent of trying to get the governments to change
their laws.