Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

["Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net>]

Quantum_Cat <anonymous@cotse.com> wrote in message
200008071502.LAA11137@anon.cotse.com">news:200008071502.LAA11137@anon.cotse.com...
>
> Hiya, Arkain
>
>  *>Congratulations! you completed an insult-free post!
> These are the
>  *>kinds of
>  *>posts that people don't mind responding to. ;-)
>
> Well, now that I've shown it can be done, I can got back
> to my nasty self.  ;)
>
> *snip*

:-D

<snipped>
>  *>Yes. It is absurd. Maybe you didn't read that last
> line. Look at
>  *>it again. I
>  *>basically said that it is hypocritical to report
> someone else's
>  *>crimes when
>  *>you have crimes of your own that need reporting.
> Please don't try
>  *>to read
>  *>between the lines with me. I don't usually put
> anything there.
>  *>::-D
>
> You said we don't have a right to point fingers unless
> we point at all faults.  Oddly enough, your own
> assertion was quite focused.  ;)

Close, but not quite. I said (or at least meant) that when pointing out a
particular fault, point at all cases of that fault, including within
yourself.

> Since such a worldview is so unworkable and absurd, I'll
> leave it to the more morally  inclined to try to make it
> work.

Absurd, not really, but that's a much harder debate. Let's not go there.
Unworkable? Given today's society, I'm inclined to agree.

<snipped>
>  *>Flight of fancy? Trust me when I say that my feet are
> squarely
>  *>planted on
>  *>solid ground. My view isn't extreem at all. If there
> is no
>  *>reasonable limit
>  *>to the law and it's pervue, then why did you make the
> comment that
>  *>"the
>
> The limits to the laws are in the code itself, Arkain.
> Your "reasonable limit" is entirely subjective and
> undefined.  And you wonder why us vogons prefer the law
> to you?

...In the code? Not entirely. You see, the subjective limits of the law are
played out on a case-by-case basis. This is the foundation of "case law" and
why lawyers will point to the results of prior similar cases to assist their
point.

<snipped>
> Your strategy is a common one of misdirection.  You
> claim that someone pointing out an injustice must point
> at ALL misjustice.  You claim that someone who has
> broken a law is a hypocrit for pointing at the actions
> of any others.
>
> Basically, you're trying to water done the "opposition".
> It's not going to work.  ;)

A common tactic of both a lawyer and a debater. I'm glad you caught it. ;-)

<snipped>
>  *>You've made the point that despite the fact that the
> software in
>  *>question
>  *>has been completely de-valued by it's copyright
> holders for an
>  *>extended
>  *>period of time (more than a decade), the violation of
> such
>  *>copyrights is
>  *>still something to worry about. I think that such
> violations are
>  *>trivial,
>  *>that it is pointless for such actions to be illegal.
> From where I
>  *>sit, your
>  *>concern over trivial infractions leads me to believe
> that *ANY*
>  *>crime,
>  *>regardless of how trivial, is something that you'd be
> worried
>  *>about. Am I
>  *>wrong?
>
> Arkain, we are dealing with folks who are making
> decisions about other folks property.  Some of these
> same folks had no problem with getting out the sector
> editor to new software and modifying it to suit
> themselves.
>
> They put software still being sold commercially on their
> sites and call it an "accident" when caught.

That piracy is inexcusable. You'll get no argument from me on that one.

<snipped>
>  *>If I'm right then note that even though shoplifting
> is far more
>  *>trivial than
>  *>murder, you should show the same concern for both.
> Likewise, even
>  *>though old
>  *>Victorian codes are more trivial than 10+ year old
> copyrights on
>  *>abandoned,
>  *>de-valued software, you should be concerned about
> both. That means
>  *>that for
>  *>you to keep from being a hypocrite, you'd have to
> annoy Victorian
>  *>law
>  *>violators the same way you annoy so-called Turlettes.
> That's the
>  *>point I was
>  *>making.
>
> No, I don't, Arkain.  I will not dissipate my efforts to
> suit your brand of morallity.  Nice try though.  ;)

Glad you liked it. :-)

>  *>Ever think that the issue will not be resolved by
> persuasion,
>  *>coersion, or
>  *>nuisance? It may be that the only viable solutions
> are to work
>  *>with the
>  *>remaining copyright holders wherever possible, buy
> auction copies
>  *>where
>  *>available and shrink-wraps allow, and try to affect
> the copyright
>  *>laws for a
>  *>proper resolution to the software issue.
>
> I don't expect to resolve this issue, Arkain.  I would
> be consider it victory if Turley and his toadies took
> their trade somewhere else.
>
> Just like hassling drug dealers dealing on the street
> drives them off, perhaps the same will work here.

You know, sometimes annoying the dealers get's the nuisance shot! Please be
careful! ;-)

>  *>Fine! No problem! But what do you do when there is no
> place left
>  *>to get
>  *>permission from?
>
> Me?  I don't sweat it.  I can't think of a class of
> software that doesn't have a freeware/shareware
> alternate.

True for productivity apps, but not true for games. It's often the games
that piraters want.

>  *>Unless I'm mistaken (and I very well may be), the
> Brady law
>  *>doesn;t cover
>  *>any form of IP violation. So I'm not really sure how
> that applies.
>
> My point was the selective nature of our federal
> government.  Just because they rarely prosecute, doesn't
> mean they'd ignore blatant disregard of those laws.  ;)

True enough.

>  *>> So, if the courts aren't likely to handle it, why
> complain
>  *>> when a common citizen like me takes pot shots at
> Turlettes?
>  *>>
>  *>> You see, it's within MY rights.
>
>  *>...For the same reason that you complain about
> violating defunct
>  *>copyrights.
>  *>Regardless of the legality, it's just annoying!
>
> Yes it is.  And I don't feel like being the only one
> annoyed.  ;)

:-D

>  *>I said 15 in mention of the age of a piece of
> software, not in
>  *>reference to
>  *>my believe about the length of the terms. I would
> make software
>  *>copyrights
>  *>last 10 years after which, if the package is still
> either being
>  *>sold or
>  *>supported by the copyright holder, the holder can
> renew for
>  *>another 10. If
>  *>the holder ceases to both sell and support a package,
> the holder
>  *>will have 1
>  *>final 10 year renewal left, after which the software
> becomes
>  *>public domain.
>  *>As I said, my view isn't unreasonable.
>
> Who knows?  Software in the future may well be entirely
> different, and your suggestion would be unworkable.  For
> example, neural net software, or Artificial
> Intelligence.

Neural net and AI software will require the Copyright laws to be re-written
specifically to handle those cases when they become mainstream. That isn't
too far away.

> I really don't think you've brought forth a compelling
> need to simply disregard the Copyright Act as it is and
> modify it.  It appears that you simply wish to pirate
> unmolested.

I wasn't going for "need to simply disregard" I was going for "need to
properly augment". No truely viable argument can ever be brought to allow
someone to blatently violate the law, except where the law prevents someone
from living.

>  *>Not true. My figures are based on the maximum life
> expectancy of a
>  *>given
>  *>software package. It seems that after an average of
> 10 years, the
>  *>particular
>  *>platform that a package is running on tends to become
> out-moded by
>  *>newer
>  *>platforms. Likewise, the software involved usually
> becomes
>  *>out-dated and is
>  *>abandoned by the copyright holders. I'm not too big
> on
>  *>arbitrary...
>
> But you don't ignore it when it suits your needs.  ;)
>
> You had a lot of qualifiers in that statement.."seems",
> "tends", "usually"...
>
> If you DID get your proposal through, it would be just
> as arbitrary as the current situation, simply of shorter
> duration.

Not true. I used the qualifiers because I gathered my numbers through
informal methods. If I instead used a formal method, I wouldn't have used
the qualifiers. Please don't equate informal with sloppy though. :-)

>  *>> No.. the OTHER legal thing I can do is stand here
> and shout
>  *>> "Thief!".
>  *>> It won't stop him, but I know it annoys the heck
> out of him.
>  *>> ;)
>
>  *>Then it serves no constructive purpose, and is
> therefore not
>  *>really worth
>  *>the time you put into it.
>
> But I remain the judge of the value of my time, thank
> you.  :)

... as is your right. :-)

You know, I think we've exhausted the limits of this debate. We covered
every point I can think of. Now we can leave it to the USENET archives to
store this so that hopefully others will not need to repeat this debate.
What do you think? Did we cover everything?

Arkain