Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

["Arkain" <rwking@usa.nospam.net>]

"Roy and/or Janet Miller" <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
398E3580.FCF019FE@inetnebr.com">news:398E3580.FCF019FE@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.

Oh brother! I see you understand the letter of the law, but not its intent.

Copyright law is designed and was created to protect the author's ability to
profit from a work. Since copying and redistributing a work has a direct
effect on the profitability of the work, then the right to copy marketed
works should be protected. We all agree on this point. If the author, for
whatever reason, has no desire to profit from a work, then a copyright is
inappropriate. This seems to be where we disagree.

> I even have the right to refuse to sell it or allow it to
> be copied.

True. The current law does allow for that, but let me ask you something. If
you created a work, but had no desire to sell it or allow it to be
copied(distributed), then it's not likely to ever leave your computer, so
why would you copyright it? Don't use a "defunct commercial" argument
because that it was once commercial implies the intent to sell and/or
distribute. There are quite a few programs on my system that I never intend
to sell or distribute. As such, I'll never bother spending the money to
copyright them. The ones I intend to sell, I will copyright. When they lose
their value to me, I'll release them to PD.

> Most copyright owners would probably release their software if
> approached.

Fortunately for us! :-D

> Perhaps some have some hope of still making money off of their work,
> either reworked for another platform, or whatever.

That requires a new copyright.

> 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.

Possible but note that
    1) the first case will likely lead to abuses of the law,
    2) the second case leaves us hunting down a nearly impossible to follow
trail trying to find the appropriate heir, and
    3) you forgot the 3rd case: Maybe they are dead and there are no heirs
left to inherit the copyright.

<snipped>

I don't whine. I'm just carrying on a logical debate, practicing skills that
I don't often get a chance to use. My original post to Q_C simply asked him
(in long form) to stop slandering other members of the A2 community which I
also did with Paul G. shortly before he started filtering. This lead to a
debate between him and I about the nature of the activities of some of the
members of this community. I naturally took the opposing position, seizing
the opportunity to practice my debating skills.

If you don't care for debate, then kindly drop out of the conversation
instead of attempting to offend my sensibilities. Otherwise, please do
continue with your side of the issue.

Arkain