Re: Asimov Site

[Liam Busey <buseyl@my-deja.com>]

**** **** wrote:
> 
> Liam Busey wrote in message <39A6FC5F.1FD3@my-deja.com>...

- snip unjust comp.sys.cbm flame -

> Liam,
>     Please don't take this the wrong way. I am aware that youu have
> apologized for it, and as far as I am concerned, there is nothing to > get angry at here (you took it back, and we all say things in haste, > from time to time). 

Yeah, I got too wrapped up in my post. Reality left somewhere near the
end and comp.sys.cbm became a casualty.

> But I would like to point something out here. I believe this
> "feeling/attitude/whatever" could lend us new insight into the > thinking behind your statements, and those who generally side with > you. 

I don't know if I'm a good example. I support copyright as a means to
encourage potential creators to release their works to the public. I
don't see copyright as cash cow but as control over the fruit of one's
labor.

> It shows that you are biased, but in this I am guilty too. 

Of course, it's only natural. Dealing with our prejudices is part of
what makes us who we are.


> I'll side with those who have little respect for copyrights, even > before I've thought it through, and this is a bad thing.
 
It's funny you should say that. My first instinct was to ignore them as
well.

> Just because the 'philosophy' of copyrights is evil,

What do you find objectional about copyright? Is it the control of the
intangible? The Tieing up of resources that once created could be copied
at little or no cost? Ownership in general?

> doesn't mean that I have a holy duty to go out and pirate everything > copyrighted material in the known universe. 

No, but many people of a similar mindset feel that it is their duty to
collect and preserve all copyrighted material. They feel as though
society already owns the material despite the fact that the government's
grant of copyright is normally still in effect. This can be enraging to
creators regardless of whether their works are providing income or not.

> Indeed, there are times when it is morally wrong to violate a 
> copyright, my fight is with those fools who think this is because "the > law" says so, it must be "wrong". 

One might argue that is morally wrong to disobey the laws of a society
you have agreed to be part of. However since you were automatically
given citizenship at birth and have no place to go if you reject it, I
would not be among them. I am indecisive on this matter. 

> They spout nonsense about how can I never have enough wisdom to 
> discern when it is ok to violate a copyright, and when it is ethically > wrong. As if I were a child. How does a law change this? I still have > the same choice to make, one of which is pre-approved.

Noone's patronizing you John. They're just trying to be practical. If
the government didn't draw a line in the sand we would'nt have a
standard to measure ourselves by. If everyone decided for themselves
what was right and what was wrong we'd have absolute chaos. I may be
able to trust you, I may be able to trust Lewin, or even Tom but I'd be
a fool to trust everyone and everyone would be foolish to trust me
unconditionally. It's our responsibility as citizens to make sure that
that the line is drawn fairly and correct it if it falters.

> These people must have very twisted perceptions of justice, to apply 
> their laws so inflexibly and without regard to whether a particular
> law is only protecting something that should remain protected, or if 
> it is only a taxpayer financed monopoly that only tends to further 
> injure the common man, the consumer, the citizen.

Who judges when lies apply and to whom? In the US noone is above the
law. If we vote for people who create said monopolies and take no
measures to correct them we can only blame ourselves.


>     Anyway, I implore you to examine what you said. In it, we can see
> someone who might think that only rabid anti-piracy efforts can keep 
> the poor hungry software developer (Lars Ulrich, Disney, MPAA) clothed > and fed. This simply isn't true. 

Don't think me a monster, but I wouldn't give a rat's ass if Lars
Ulrich, Disney, or the MPAA were starving to death in the middle of the
street. Their IP may be a means for revenue but it's not a handout. If I
were to give them a meal it would be because I was feeling charitable
and not because their creations give them a special position in society. 

Still if I wanted blast my ear drums with some metal, watch the latest
fractured folk legend, or listen to the latestest teeny-bopper band I
owe the copyright holders for the privilege. If all the little guys want
to sell their IP to monster corporations that's their right.

> There are those pirates that do these things with little respect for 
> those that they are infringing against, and even I admit there have 
> been times where they have destroyed someone's livelyhood. But how 
> often has this happened? Can you name one? Without doing research, I 
> can only think of two software titles. We all need to slow down, and 
> think more clearly, so that we can see those who do the real harm. 
> We'll see them on both sides of the debate, to be sure. 

Again, I am not among those who see copyright as only a means for a
living.

> You aren't protecting those you care for, by becoming a vigilante and > murdering the innocent man, so to speak.

No! No! No! That's an unrelated hobby of mine. It's not fair to confuse
things by bringing that into the debate.

> Nor are you, by implicitly trusting the "cops" to always be on the 
> side of justice.

If we can't trust them than we should openly oppose them. Being a cop
must be a tough thankless job since people tend to make mountains out of
mole hills. Of course the jerks among them damage their reputation just
as they do in other professions.


>     If you see someone pirating a smalltime shareware title, that you > just know is hurting the author, BY ALL MEANS, shut the ******** down. > Make a point of letting everyone know just what kind of lowlife he is. > But if someone is only giving a copy to a friend, of some game that no > one knows who even owns the rights anymore, where is the injury? 

Maybe I unique but to me copyright does != money. The above person's
copyright has equal value to everyone else's. It's just a sad example of
piracy hurting someone's livelyhood.

> You start off by trying to prevent injury to authors, but soon find 
> yourself only protecting the laws themselves, 

I potect authors by upholding the law.

> and your good intentions have been turned astray.

I hope not. I've yet to have an author complain. Sometimes it does seem
to enrage others though.

Well John, thanks for the interesting post. If you have further
questions or criticism feel free to share.

Liam Busey