Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

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

The law is perfectly appropriate. If I create a piece of software and copyright
it, you may not make a copy, no matter how badly you want it, for only I have
the right to copy it. I even have the right to refuse to sell it or allow it to
be copied. Most copyright owners would probably release their software if
approached. Perhaps some have some hope of still making money off of their work,
either reworked for another platform, or whatever. Perhaps they have a grudge
against Apple users and refuse to allow it to be used. Maybe they are dead and
their heirs have no idea what they own.

The problem is that the law is reasonable and appropriate, but it keeps you and
others from what you want, but don't have the right to have. So you whine about
the law, and create false analogies, divert from the main point and can't even
understand clearly written sentences that are contrary to what you wish to hear.
You have missed my point, numerous times, you have missed QC's point numerous
times, and then you make your points based on your erroneous reading of our
statements, and complain that we have missed your point, which is beside the
point. This is exhausting.

Roy

Arkain wrote:

> "Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
> news:g7nj5.67$BZ.786501@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net...
> > The objection that many have is that the "reasonable" approach is so
> > self-serving.
>
> Agreed. That's why in prior posts I stated "reasonable" and "appropriate."
> While the current copyright laws (with respect to software) are "reasonable"
> to some, they are about appropriate as the remaining old Victorian laws.
>
> > After all, there may be copyright holders of "abandoned software" that
> have
> > taken the reasonable approach that they do not need to sell, promote, or
> > make their own existence known, for the copyright laws to protect their
> > exclusive rights in their intellectual property.  That reasonable belief,
> > is, in fact The Law.
>
> IMHO, it is reasonable *only* because it is the law. If the laws were
> constructed differently, then that belief would be unreasonable. I seek a
> reasonability that exists without specific regard to the law. I.e. what is
> reasonable for me remains reasonable whether or not the law supports it. I
> would prefer that the law did support it, of course.
>
> > This may be absolutist, but that is why laws are written:  to make bright
> > lines regarding permissible and prohibited conduct.
>
> True, but what happens when the lines are poorly laid? People begin to
> disregard the law until it is either amended more appropriately, or they are
> prosecuted for their actions. This is where the bulk of the A2 community is
> now... stuck with an inappropriate law, disregarding it, and waiting for an
> action one way or another while some of them attempt to legalize it
> properly.
>
> Even Q_C agreed for a moment that the laws should be more equitable. ;-)
>
> Arkain