Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Arkain wrote:

> > So how can you equate Victorian laws with the Copyright Act
> > which was revised as of the end of the first session of the
> > 106th Congress in 1999?  Feeble analogy at best, Arkain.
>
> Feeble in your opinion, probably because it does chip away at your
> argument... not a lot, but enough to start.

No, feeble because the one is a law that is at least a hundred years old, and
the other only a year old. I haven't seen any chipping away yet.

>
> > And I doubt very much that the laws you have in mind regard
> > property rights.
>
> Take a look at the full state charter for wherever you are someday. Those
> laws usually covered everything from property rights to personal hygene!
> Definitely an extreme case of overkill.

Not necessarily, laws (such as spitting on sidewalks) were very important in
light of conditions and knowledge of the day (like TB being a major killer and
being spread through spittle.) Perhaps the laws seem strange, but put in their
context, they usually make good sense.

>
>  Lets stick with comparing apples with apples here, OK?
>
> Apples w/ apples, eh? So if Copyright laws(<-key word) are apples then old
> Victorian laws(<-same key word) are what?

The keyword is not law. It is the adjective. Unless you wish to compare homicide
with puppy poopy laws.

> Not really. I object to the constant barrage of insults that come from a
> person who might otherwise have been deemed reasonable. I object to those
> who ruthlessly point out faults without presenting *viable* solutions. Sure.
> Point all you like, but do it without insults and give a reasonably
> acceptable solution that satisfies both you and the "offender."

I have yet to see you try to stop the insults of those on the other side. Why is
it that no one around here is bothered by that? Hmmm?? Where are your complaints
against Paul G. and bobryan et al?
Besides there is a *viable* solution. Honesty. But that isn't acceptable to
pirates.


>
> >  *>Have any of the so-called vogons informed the original
> > author(s) & copyright
> >  *>holder(s) that their rights are being violated? If so, did
> > they care?
> >
> > Yes, some have.  And in many cases they did, but weren't
> > willing to spend the money on lawyers to correct the
> > situation.
>
> That's good to see that some Vogons are living up to their creed. As for the
> copyright holder(s) that *aren't willing* to spend the money to do something
> about the problem, then they are essentially telling all of us that the
> problem *isn't worth stopping*.

No, what they are saying is that they can't afford to spend thousands of dollars
to win a few hundred bucks and shut down one pirate site only to have another
spring up like mushrooms after a rain. The return doesn't make economic sense.
We've seen that very thing happen in postings here in the last few weeks. One
site is down, and someone gets another up. But there was a good piece of news. A
Mac site that did things similar to Asimov was taken down by the SPA. Perhaps we
should start talking to them, and getting them to send letters to ISPs that
protect pirate sites. That should be interesting.

>
> > My service is free.  ;)
>
> Your service is unsolicited and therefore illegal in some places. Are you in
> one of those places?

His "service" is called free speech. And you are right, it is illegal in some
places. I hope it is still legal in the US and Canada.

>
> >  *>I would wager that they either didn't care or haven't been
> > informed.

You lose the wager. Read QC's above comments and your own reply to him.

<snip>

> The problem with emotional direst cases is that the plaintiff has to prove
> either intent or that sufficient damage was done due to the "mental
> anguish."

That's pretty easy to do in the US. Didn't you read about the recent tobacco
suit? People who started smoking since packs of cigarettes have been telling
them that the Surgeon General of the United States of America has determined
that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and who have continued for 20-30 years
blame someone else for their stupidity and juries award millions and now
billions of dollars. Simple as pie.

> This would be very difficult to prove in the case of a copyright
> holder of 15 year old, out-moded, out-dated, depreciated software.

Well then, if the software is so valueless, why do you and others illegally copy
and distribute it? The fact is that it does have enough value for you and others
to go to the effort of getting a copy. Besides, the mental anguish has nothing
to do with the economics of it.

>
> >  *>As far as C. Turley is concerned, who cares if he is doing
> > it in the wrong
> >  *>order(posting the software before he has permission).
> >
> > Well, obviously _I_ care.  When it does it as standard
> > procedure, then that simply enforces the fact that he's a
> > thief, and a liar.  Nobody has to "care" for that fact to
> > ring true.
>
> True enough, but you've got about as much "legal" gound to stand on as a man
> doing a highwire act. The only "legal" thing you can do to stop him is to
> inform the copyright owner.

Posting on csa2 isn't a legal action. It is engaging in free speech. And that is
pretty broad legal ground. He can, and has, legally spoken out about it.

> If the copyright owner isn't *willing* to press
> charges, then you have no ground to stand on at all.
>
> >  *>The fact is that he *IS* doing *SOMETHING* to help the
> > situation. There's an
> >  *>old saying that goes:
> >
> > Ah... You must be using an entirely different meaning of the
> > word "help" than the rest of the world.
>
> Although he may be illegally posting the materials prematurely, he is
> working to legalize the availability of the material. Oh, BTW. Did you check
> to see if Turley owns the copy that he posted, because if he does, then he
> hasn't commited a crime. The criminals would be the ones who download the
> material. Laws have so many loop-holes!

In that situation, he has committed a crime. He has violated the copyright law.
He has copied, not for personal, private archival purposes. He would have also
violated a license agreement, but that is a totally different story.

>
> <snipped>
> >  *>    "Before you try to get the twig out of my eye,
> >  *>     you'd better get the log out of your own."
> >
> > Bullshit.  ;)

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke those words, which you misquoted, "why do you look
at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your
own eye?" Matthew 7:3 And I'll thank you QC to have some respect here.

<snip>

>
> I have noticed. There is more to be said on this... so please just keep
> reading...
>

But your reply is getting interminable....

>
> > What problem are YOU concerned about that he's doing such a
> > fine job of doing something about?
>
> I made no assumptions that he was/is doing a "fine job" on anything. I
> simply stated that he is trying to gain legal access to the software for
> everyone. That will solve the problem of legal distribution.

But there are others doing the same. And they haven't made available software
that hasn't yet been granted freeware status. If Tom gets WordPerfect classified
as freeware, I'll be the first to publicly thank him. But until that happens, it
should not be posted. BTW, Tom, should you read this, or Willie, or Howard, can
anyone get SuperCalc turned loose? I'd like to have a copy, if someone has one
they'd like to sell.

>
>
> >  *>Is that more than can be said for you? Have you worked on
> > getting some
> >  *>software reclassified yourself? Have you succeeded at any
> > of it?
> >
> > Rhetorical question?
>
> No.
>
> > Do I have to jump through your little
> > flaming hoops (being perfect, doing something constructive)
> > to merit posting my opinions?  To answer your questions the,
> > Yes and Yes.
>
> Very good. It's nice to know that you are doing more than just insulting
> people.
>
> >  *>I've said all of that to say this. The insults you make
> > are pointless and
> >  *>only serve to weaken if not destroy any valid points that
> > you may have about
> >  *>someone else's actions. If you choose to respond to this
> > or any other post,
> >  *>please keep your comments civil and insult free.

And yet, you don't say that to those who insult QC, or Nathan, or Joe Kohn, or
Burger Bill, or Howard, and so on and so on.

> As for
> > diminishing the
> >
> > I'm trying.  I think my points stand up very well.  At least,
> > in the past, there was a lot of squawking from those who
> > found them imbedded in their butts.
>
> :-D
> You did well up to here but...

There was a mental image I could have lived without....

>
>
> >  *>accomplishments of those in the camp opposite yours
> > (Turley and others), I
> >  *>don't see where you have the right to do that if you
> > haven't done at least
> >
> > Most of the Dorktors accomplishments appear to be collecting
> > stolen goods, ripping articles from other folks web pages,
> > conning morons into running his ftp pirate sites, and in
> > general, being a pimp for many Apple II users.
>
> "Dorktor"? The one and only insult. You almost made it... Almost.

And what about your use of the word "vogon" which is an insult? Hmmm?? You seem
quite happy to use the term to apply to defenders of private property rights.

>
> Hasn't he also worked at and suceeded at getting a fair number of software
> titles released from their copyrights? Certainly that must count for
> something?

And what about all the programming work that Nathan Mates had done for the Apple
II community? But because he defended private property rights he was hounded
right out of the A2 community. There is a post here from Steve M. claiming
credit for that. I suppose you'd rather have a pirated copy of old software
rather than seeing new software being created.

>
> >  *>as much yourself. If your accomplishments in this
> > area(assuming they exist)
> >  *>aren't as great, then you need to work on building your's
> > up before you can
> >  *>look down on someone else's.
> >
> > I assure you, my accomplishments won't be as low as Turley's.
> > I won't be making my corner of csa2 into a nice comfy
> > crackhouse.  Disappointed?
>
> This statement was needlessly demeaning. Drug abuse and software piracy have
> nothing in common save that they're both illegal. Remember, you said that
> you wanted to "stick with comparing apples with apples here".

Actually, you own original post was demeaning. Are you contending that one may
only speak their mind if they can prove that they are better than others? Only
those who achieve may have the right to think and speak? That's what you said,
is that what you meant? Further, you are now arguing from both sides of the
issue. First "law" is the keyword, now it isn't. Make up your mind.

>
> >  *>I am a firm believer in following the laws, but I will
> > ignore them when they
> >  *>are inappropriate.

That's fine, so long as you are willing to receive the consequences of your
actions. There have been laws passed in other nations, that if passed here, I
would cheerfully disobey. Laws that are wrong, laws that are immoral. However,
that is, IMHO, not the case here. A law that protects private property is moral,
even if it assures that my great grand children may receive the fruit of my
labor.

>
> >
> > That's anarchy, Arkain.  Remind me not to call you as a
> > babysitter.  ;)
>
> Hey! I was an excellent babysitter in my day!! ;-D
> If you think I'm an anarchist because I chose to apply laws only where they
> make sense, then I submit that you are an anarchist too! Don't argue the
> point just yet. Wait till next paragraph...

I'm very tired of waiting for a point that never comes. If I prepared sermons
like this I would have everyone asleep in 5 minutes instead of 25....  :-)

>
> > If you are free to ignore laws, why are you so upset with the
> > fact that I ignore you and your rationalization of why it's
> > "OK to steal"?
>
> Because you keep missing the point by ignoring.

Let me get this straight. It's ok for you to ignore, but not QC? What's the word
for that... something like hypocrisy??

> If you were reading
> carefully instead of glancing over the text looking for a point you don't
> like, you would noticed a small, but highly important detail. The laws are
> designed to protect the rights of those that care about their rights.

No, you missed the point. The laws are designed to protect rights, Period.
Enforcement of those laws are a somewhat different matter.

>
>
> *** Remember, I promised to make a point of all this? Here it is. Read it
> and enjoy. ***

About time.

>
> Remember saying:
> > If we take this to extremes, then the police would be
> > crippled because they have probably broken laws too.
>
> above? I submit to you that you are taking the copyright law to an extreem,
> the same extreem that would land most if not all law enforcement officials
> in jail. This is the point where you have to be able to separate the "letter
> of the law" from the "spirit of the law."

You ignored "this". Go read QC's reply again, and see what "this" refers to. It
wasn't the taking of a law to an extreme. It was, again, your questioning his
right to post unless he is perfect in his keeping of all laws. Now, that's
extreme.

> The orignal copyright laws were
> only applicable to printed words and recorded music.

Pssst - laws have to be updated to deal with a changing world. Ours have been.
Even if you don't like how they have been updated, the fact that they have is
still there. When the only media was paper, parchment, and engravings, the laws
were a bit different in wording, but the heart is still the same: making a copy
of someone's work is illegal.

> These types of items
> are known to have a commercial value indefinitely, hence the long duration
> of the copyright. Did you know that producers have to pay a royalty when
> they want thesbians to sing "Happy Birthday" as part of the show?

LOL, where is the commercial value of singing "Happy Birthday", without the law
that grants it protection?

>
>
> The DCMA was introduced to handle the cases of digitized version of printed
> words and recorded music. There has never been a copyright law provided to
> handle the case of computer software/firmware. Since these items are known
> short lifespan, it is only appropriate that the copyright applied to them be
> equally short, on the order of a patent license. Unfortunately this isn't
> the case. So as it stands, we have copyrights on software that are designed
> to follow the current copyright law even though the copyright law has no
> provision in it for software.

Case law says that the copyright laws are applicable. Read Byte and other
journals from the early and mid 1980s and see the various court cases covering
software and firmware.

>
>
> Your statement about extreemes admits that there are reasonable limits in
> how a law can and/or should be applied.

No, you missed QC's point. The extreme was saying that unless one is perfect one
can't apply the law, enforce the law, or even point out that an activity is
illegal. That is how you started your original post, and how QC responded.
Reread it. You missed the point and have given this really long winded post to
make a point that isn't there.

> For me,

Subjectivity has little or no place in legal matters. Objective truth is what
matters.

> that limit of reasonablility
> ends 10 years after a piece of software was last sold or supported by the
> copyright holder. That gives the owner plenty of time to re-affirm the value
> of the software. Since the law was never designed to protect the software
> owner,

Since the law has been updated since the dawn of the micro computer age, your
statement is in error. In fact, the law has been updated since case law has
shown that software and firmware are protected by the copyright laws, and if
they didn't want it to apply to soft/firmware, they had a perfect opportunity to
make the necessary changes. The fact that the changes weren't made proves that
your statement is totally off base.

> it is not reasonable to expect anyone to care about or obey a
> copyright that is on software that is 10 years depreciated, especially on a
> platform that is no longer available. The DCMA even states that it *is
> legal* to archive such material for non-commercial use before the copyright
> expires. Don't believe me? Read the DCMA. It's there.

The last statement is not in dispute.

>
> If you still insist that no such reasonable limits should exist in the
> copyright law, and yet still insist that there are extreems that should be
> avoided in other laws, then you are guilty of hypocricy in the extreem. You
> are also likely guilty of breaking other laws in equally as trivial
> situations.
>

This does not compute. He didn't argue that there are extremes (correct
spelling) to be avoided in other laws, but in your contention that only the
perfect may make, defend, apply, and execute law. That was and is an extreme.

>
> >  *>On this, don't try to classify me as a Turlette or a
> > Vogon. Those
> >  *>definitions won't fit me. You might be able to get away
> > with pirate, but I
> >  *>do believe that the laws are justified surrounding
> > software that is *still
> >  *>sold &/or supported*. So I'm not really a pirate either.
> > So save both of us
> >  *>the trouble and don't classify me.
> >
> > Alas, the Copyright Act says nothing about "*still sold &/or
> > supported*".  Perhaps it should, but it protects EVERYTHING.
> > So yes, your really ARE a pirate.  Tough Beans.
>
> Not quite true. Read the copyright law more scrutinizingly and you will see
> that only printed media, audio media, and data are covered in this law.
> There are no provisions in the copyright law to handle the peculiar case of
> software.

You'd better read again, and check case law. The media is not the what is
protected, the work is what is protected, regardless of the media it is recorded
on. Besides, with computers, where is data recorded? On papyrus?

>
> A "pirate" is a person that steals items for the intent of building wealth.

Not at all true. Totally false. The current court case in reference to Napster
is all about piracy. How many people exchanging music on Napster are getting
rich from it? But each is engaging (should the case be decided against Napster)
in piracy.

>
> I am no pirate. I could steal every piece of abandoned A2 software on the
> planet, but I wouldn't be any richer.

But you would still be a pirate.

>
> > In any case, Copyrights of digital materials (music/programs/
> > graphics) are likely to be high on the legislative agenda in
> > the near future.  Perhaps it will work out to satisfy us all.
>
> That's good. They need to be. We need to have a law that is apppropriate for
> software just as is available for books, music, etc...

At the present, the law says that books, music, software are all works worthy of
copyright protection. Perhaps it should be changed, but it is appropriate. Some
of us just don't like it.

Roy