Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

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

But, you aren't debating, in the sense of someone who is seeking the truth, or
coming to a consensus, rather, you are debating, in the sense of someone, as you
said in the post below, who is seeking to debate for the sake of debating.
Hence, you keep throwing up spurious arguments, and diverting to peripheral
issues, anything so long as you do not have to face the facts and or logic of
the other side, nor confront the lack of facts or illogic of your own positions.
So, this is the end of this thread, for me.

Arkain wrote:

> "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