Re: New Apple II SuperSite Online

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

There is nothing wrong with you reasoning, except it is not how copyright
law operates.

The author of a copyrighted work has the exclusive right to make copies.
Whether the work has any actual economic worth is irrelevant to the
preservation of that right.  copying a copyrighted work without permission
might not be a criminal trespass, but it is still a trespass.

To determine the actual author's wishes, ask the author, his or her heirs,
or assigns.  If permission can't be obtained, then the default course of
action is to not copy the work until the copyright has expired.  Project
Gutenberg (the library of electronic texts) follows this approach in only
using works copyrighted before 1923.

"Tom Zuchowski" <tzuchow@attglobal.net> wrote in message
39fab05a_4@news3.prserv.net">news:39fab05a_4@news3.prserv.net...

> I don't care to argue philosophy here. I am interested in actual damages
and
> actual author's wishes, not hypothetical what-if's.

.....snip.....

No court is going to punish an author for ignoring activities
> that he is unaware of. The court will be interested in what the author
does
> when he learns of the violation. In the case we are discussing here, all
he
> will have to do is ask us to drop his title. The honorable among us will
do
> so, and the true pirates among us will ignore him, as pirates have done
for
> 20 years.

Some would argue that the honorable individual would not disseminate
copyrighted works without permission in the first place.  Those who feel
stongly about the rights of authors are going to report copyright violations
to ISPs, SPA, etc.

The problem with relying with authors to ask a site to take down a work is
that it is a slippery slope.  Since diligently searching for an author to
seek permission involves work, some will make only perfunctory efforts, then
put works up that an author really does *not* want distributed for a variety
of reasons.  The only really bright line rule is to put up no works for
which permission has not been granted.  Every other approach allows a degree
of discretion not permitted by copyright law.

Mind you, personally, I don't feel strongly about this. But those who *do*
care have valid points, as I have outlined above, and are correct in their
interpretation of the law.