Re: Syndicomm Scam

["Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net>]

"Eric Rucker" <bhtooefr@gmail.com> wrote:

> However, under our current legal frameworks, Syndicomm is the legal 
> distributor of quite a bit of software and documentation, and the 
> copyright holders of most of those works are active holders and have set 
> terms under which their works can be distributed. While we can argue until 
> the cows come home about the fairness of those terms, and the effects on 
> the Apple II community of those arrangements, Syndicomm and the copyright 
> holders do have the legal right to charge whatever they want (except in 
> certain situations, none of which apply in this case), and at least in 
> some cases, have shown that they're willing to exercise their legal 
> rights, unlike the many, many inactive or dormant copyright holders 
> (which, it's still not legal to distribute their products, but hey...)

Whoa! I don't know where you live Erik, but where I live it doesn't appear 
that Tony is being Fair... We have user's rights here, and as a result the 
so called "legal" copyright holders of the works he represents may well have 
lost the ability to defend their works here by not making them available in 
a timely manner and for other reasons as well...  I've said this before 
about other issues... if I make copies in Canada because I can't get a fair 
shake from a US vendor, try to stop me! I don't care how big your Apple is:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

The 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law 
Society of Upper Canada clarifyied the concept of fair dealing in Canada. In 
considering fair dealing the Court makes the following general observation:

It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to 
copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that 
his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing 
exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the 
Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing 
exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing 
exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In 
order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner 
and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.

Furthermore, by taking "a liberal approach to the enumerated purposes of the 
dealing", the Court has made fair dealing more flexible:

- The Purpose of the Dealing - In particular, the Court gave a "a large and 
liberal interpretation" to the notion of research, stating that "lawyers 
carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research".

- The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? What is the 
general practice in the industry? What was the importance of the infringed 
work?

- Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" 
available to the user?  Reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a 
wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law.

- Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the 
effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important 
factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a 
court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair."

Just thought I'd mention it:)

Also Dormant Copyright holders are not being fair so my user's rights 
protect and defend me if I want to copy and distribute old stuff!

Bill