[no subject]

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.

They are blatant about their deeds on csa2, and equate 
silence with consent.  

Trivial?  Not a chance, Arkain.

 *>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.  ;)

 *>> Being nice didn't exactly work, Arkain.  Being mean 
polarizes
 *>> our situation, but there have been changes.

 *>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.

 *>Then again, I might be missing something...

 *>> As for what would be an acceptable solution?  
Simple.
 *>>
 *>> Get permission, THEN upload it to the publically 
accessable
 *>> archives.
 *>>
 *>> That would work for me.  OK with you?

 *>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.

 *><snipped>
 *>>  *>Actually, that's the Criminal aspect of the Act. 
The Civil
 *>> portion
 *>>  *>is prosecuted on differnt grounds. Remember, the 
Criminal
 *>> aspect
 *>>  *>is prosecuted by the federal govenment, but they 
will not
 *>>  *>prosecute if the property is not of sufficient 
commercial
 *>> value.
 *>>
 *>> But of course, this is the same government that has 
convicted
 *>> exactly 12 folks for breaking the Brady Law in all 
the years
 *>> it's been in effect.

 *>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.  ;)

 *>> 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.  ;)

 *>>
 *>> I notice you have yet to decide on exactly how many 
years
 *>> software should retain it's copyright.. I've seen 
10 and now
 *>> 15...  Others have mentioned 5 or 20...

 *>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.

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.

 *>> Anything you come up with will be just as arbitrary 
as the
 *>> current 70 or Life of the Author..

 *>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.

 *>> 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.  :)

Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat