Re: Asimov Site

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

Frank Townsend wrote in message ...

>> Because they find some personal value in it?  Some people are also
>> collectors, and collect things most other people find worthless.
>
>So you agree that vintage software has value on some level.  Good start!


Value does not mean $$$. Some of the most valuable things on the planet are
said to be priceless. There are those that wish to earn money, so that they
can survive and even more so be comfortable. There are those that only wish
to see "profit", no matter what it takes. For this latter group, anything
they see as being "valuable" to others makes their eyes light up as "profit
thoughts" subdue any other brain activity. They are no longer using the
system as it should be, but exploiting it, mostly for exploitation's sake.
Maybe we shouldn't actually outlaw such behavior, but it's strange how often
you stand up to defend it, or even encourage it.


>> If it has monetary value, why isn't it for sale anymore from the
>> copyright owner?
>
>You didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours.  The cost of
>reproduction and marketing may have exceeded the expected return.  But
>whatever the reason, it doesn't matter.  Copyright confers the exclusive
>right to make copies, regardless of the value of the copyrighted work.


Funny, but distrobution costs of software are as near zero as is possible.
As far as marketing goes, fuck marketing. If all the advertising agencies in
the world were to be nuked, the only bad thing would be if it somehow
managed to miss getting the politicians consulting for their election
campaigns.

Here's a Bullshit to English translation, for those that missed all of this.
>You didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours. Translation: I just
scored 2 points.
>The cost of reproduction and marketing may have exceeded the expected
return.  Translation: I have been living in a cave since 1994. What is this
Inter-thingy?
>But whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. Translation: It doesn't matter
if you come up with reasonable or even good laws, we'll find loopholes to
exploit, and hire corporate lawyers to ream those holes out wider.
>Copyright confers the exclusive right to make copies, regardless of the
value of the copyrighted work. Translation: I once heard a rumor that
copyrights were brought about to encourage new works to be created, to enter
the public domain after a reasonable amount of time. Whoever said that
though has to be dead by now, so just try to prove it!!


>> > Besides, I have plenty of things around my house which I treasure,
which
>> > have no value to the rest of the universe.  However they are mine, and
>just
>> > because they are truely valueless does not divest me of ownership.
>>
>> Would you object a lot of someone made copies of them?  Such copies may
>> exist more than you're aware of -- for instance on photos your friends
>> did snap in your home....


Oh f***. Someone better retain a lawyer, and supoena several hundred close
friends and family. I mean, he's not out so much money, but it is the
principle of the thing!!!

>> Personal value is a whole different matter -- as you say it means
>> something has value only to one or a few people.  There would be no
>> point in copyrighting such a value because others have little
>> interest in getting copies of e.g. your personal items.
>
>In fact, unpublished works such as photographs, personal letters and
diaries
>are *automatically* covered by copyright.  Courts routinely uphold those
>copyrights.
>
>And such
>> values are next to impossible to insure -- if you cannot show to the
>> insurance company that something has value not only for you but also
>> for people in general, insurance companies are usually uninterested
>> in insuring that value.
>
>But your original statement was that "[i]t becomes particularly pathetic
>when people argue about ownership of stuff which no longer h[as] any
value."
>Now you in effect agree that there *is* such a thing as personal value, but
>that it is uninsurable.  Kind of a segue, but I'll go with it for a moment.
>Insurance is not a particularly good index of value, but is more about risk
>spreading.  For example, you may have a very nice house in a flood plain.
>Flood insurance for this house may be unobtainable.  This doesn't reflect
on
>the value of the house, only that the underwriters are unable to spread the
>risk enough to justify entering into an insurance agreement.
>
>> >> So the next time you're out hiking somewhere, and you want to pick up
>> >> a stick or a stone -- stop!  Do you really have the right to steal
>> >> stuff that's not yours?  Shouldn't you ask the landowner for
permission
>> >> before you pick it up?
>> >
>> > First of all, if its not your land, you are trespassing.  You should
>have
>> > asked first for permission even to enter.
>>
>> Perhaps in your so-called "free" country, but not in my country!
>> Here we have an "everybody's right", which means anyone is allowed to
>> enter the land of others, if they obey a few rules which can be
>> summarized as "don't disturb" (e.g. don't enter too close to the
>> living quarters of others) and "don't destroy" (e.g. don't enter a
>> farmer's crop field).  This "everybody's right" applies only to
>> indoviduals or to small groups of people.  We've had it for
>> centuries, and it works out really well.  It benefits landowners too,
>> because they too are allowed to enter the land of other landowners,
>> without having to ask for permission first.
>
>The only difference is that in Sweden the line is drawn at a slightly
>different point.




>> With the US scheme, where you need advance permission first or else
>> you're trespassing, you're really quite limited when you want to
>> move around -- there are only the public roads available to you, right?
>> Ah yes, there are some parks too -- but they usually close at dusk,
>> don't they?  (we have parks too -- here almost all parks NEVER close....)
>>
>> So imagine this scenario: you're out travelling.  You stop at some
>> point at the road.  You're hungry, you're brought some food, and some
>> distance away from the road you see a hill.  Wouldn't it be nice to
>> climb that hill and enjoy the view while you eat?
>>
>> In Sweden:  Go ahead!  Climb that hill, enjoy your meal and the view !!!!
>> As long as you don't disturb and don't destroy, the landowner has no
>> right to chase you away.
>
>But s/he does, if you wander into his/her house or agricultural area.
>
>
>> In the USA:  Stop!  Are you trespassing?  Is there a fence or some
>> signs?  No, I don't see any -- but that doesn't matter, I still need
>> the landowner's permission, which I don't have.  Now, WHERE is the
>> landowner?  And WHO is the landowner?  Where do I find this out?  How
>> long would it take to find it out?  Nah, too much trouble, I'll drive
>> on to that MacDonalds reastaurant a few miles away instead.  Sigh -- I
>> wish I had lived in a truly free country.....
>
>Most people here are comfortable with these rules.


He forgot to mention that most people are sheep, and will start jumping off
tall buildings without parachutes, as soon as some sick fashion architect
decides to portray it as cool.

>> Now, which of these two alternatives would YOU have preferred?
>
>I prefer people not roaming into my yard.  I'll stay here, thank you.


He hates the idea of having more privileges/rights, if it means conceding he
was wrong to you. It's kinda why we genocided the native americans, they had
these funny ideologies that humans can't actually own land. We really showed
those dumb motherf***ers, didn't we?

>> > Even if you have a license from the owner to enter, you do not have
>> > an automatic right to remove objects from the land.  Basic property
law.
>>
>> Perhaps I don't even have the right to move a stone or a stick from
>> one place to another place, within that property?
>
>Perhaps.


He's not even willing to say somewhat sane things, if it means conceding a
point to you. If he were forced to live in Sweden, he'd hire lawyers to argu
e that your entering others land creates foul and unconscionable damage in
the manner of footprints, and seeking an injuction until such time as you
manage to levitate. After all, if he doesn't protect his rights, he'll lose
them.

>> But I do still have the right to walk around, if I have the
>> landowner's permission, right?  Now, what happens if I step on a
>> stick and break it.  May I be forced to pay damages then?
>
>Under Anglo-Saxon law, licensees may be liable for damages to property.


Of course, there is always the chance that he may forget to breathe for
longer than 15 minutes, and do us all a favor. Barring that, this is the
prime example of what decent half-way intelligent human beings have to
contend with on a daily basis. I'm betting he's either middle management, or
a goverment bureaucrat.

>>As you say
>> below, the principle counts, not the value of the item...
>
>Yes and no.  As to laws regarding theft, the value is unimportant.  As to
>civil suits, the value is important in determining damages.


Translation: Years and decades of being subhuman, and a complete dumbass to
boot, have taught me that rules only apply when they favor me, or when I can
forsee them possibly favoring me in the future. The best possible legal
strategy is to push for full prosecution, and then sue in civil court for no
less than $20 million. In this sense, we can have our "principles" and eat
them too!