Re: Asimov Site

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <9qQp5.271$J91.36493@dca1-nnrp2.news.digex.net>,
Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote:
 
> "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote in message
> news:8o80ah$jcq$1@merope.saaf.se...
> 
>> It becomes particularly pathetic when people argue about ownership of
>> stuff which no longer have any value.
> 
> That vintage software has no value is, of course, the premise of those
> who argue that they should have unfettered access to it.  But if it has no
> intrinsic value, then why do people want it?
 
Because they find some personal value in it?  Some people are also
collectors, and collect things most other people find worthless.
 
> If it has no monetary value, why are people willing to pay money for it
> on eBay and in other venues.
 
If it has monetary value, why isn't it for sale anymore from the
copyright owner?
 
> 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....
 
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.  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.
 
>> 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.
 
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.
 
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.....
 
Now, which of these two alternatives would YOU have preferred?
 
 
> 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?
 
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?  As you say
below, the principle counts, not the value of the item...
 
 
BTW the Swedish "Everybody's Right" also gives you the right to pick
up sticks and stones which lie loose on the ground, for your personal
use only.  You can also pick berries and mushrooms -- again for your
personal use.
 
Which of these systems would you prefer?
 
 
>> Yes, that stick or stone is worthless, but as we've seen so many times
>> in this newsgroup, ownership issues are just as important for worthless
>> items -- it's the PRINCIPLE which counts to some, not the value of the
>> items....
> 
> Yes, that is correct.  Statutes and other laws against theft never make
> mention of value:  theft is taking the property of another without consent.
> Any law abiding person follows this principle.
 
OTOH no person is 100% law-abiding.....
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch