Re: A time for action...

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

Rubywand wrote:

> Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
> >
> >
> > What we care about is that newbies know that some sites have copyrighted
> > software available for download, and that they be made aware of that fact.
> > After that, what they do is really their own business isn't it?
>
>      Virtually every piece of software on every site (except that in the
> public domain) is copyrighted. Informing someone that software on a site is
> "copyrighted" merely states the obvious and would be a silly activity.

Ok, you got me. I wasn't anal enough in my post. "Copyrighted and uploaded without
the copyright owner's permission." Ok?

>
>      The truth is that you invent laws which do not exist and seek to convince
> new users that they are engaging in illegal actions.

Oh come on, this is really getting silly now. Copyright is not a fantasy law,
violation of it above a certain level brings the attention of the FBI, below that
requires the eternal vigilance of the copyright owners. But whether you are tried
in criminal court, or civil court, the out come still is determined by did you or
did you not violate the copyright. It is illegal to do that. Because there is a
law, not one "invented" by those you call "vogons," but by the legislature of this
nation, and upheld by treaty with many other nations. Regardless of criminal
prosecution or not. Even more important than the law, is the ethical/moral element
that the law seeks to codify. It is wrong to take that which isn't yours, even if
you intend to just give it away.

>
>
> > We also care to see copyrighted software made into freeware, so anyone
> > can use these software works of art.
>
>      In that case, you should be especially grateful to Tom Turley, since he's
> one of the few persons getting anything done with reclassifying software.

I am, and I am grateful that he has promised to post the email with headers, once
he receives them. I also appreciate the Delphi efforts and Willie Yeo. Why didn't
you mention them?

>
>
> > Further, a few weeks ago, a legal argument was made, citing case law, as
> > to how, if you own a machine, using the firmware isn't a violation of
> > copyright law. Ruby knows about and has ignored that post - it undermines
> > his wish to paint "vogons" as hypocrites.
>  ....
>
>      Missed that posting. Evidently, it was by someone whose messages
> generally get ignored due to a long history of posting garbage (which inclines
> one to suspect that the citing you mention is just more of the same).

Actually, the name was new to me.

>
>
>      If you actually believe that the supposed instance of case law supports
> your position, you are welcome to post it along with a link which will permit
> validating its authenticity.

I'd love to, but I didn't save the post. Which is my reference was so vague. I
wish I had printed it out.

>
>
>      Until then, there is no reason to believe that ownership of a machine
> gives one the right to transfer the ROM code for use on another, entirely
> different computer.

Sure there is. I have the right to use that code to run Apple IIGS programs, even
if I'm using it with a program that emulates the IIGS hardware.

>
>
>      Nor do we have any reason to believe that sending users to a site you say
> is a "pirate site"

You said it was a pirate site. You've said it every time you've complained about
FE's link to it. A broken link, as we all know.

> to download the ROM code makes sense, _unless_ the
> expectation is that many (if not most) of your users do not own a IIgs

You passed over the obvious exception - the one reason why there was such a link -
for those who don't know how to make an image of that ROM code. I don't, for
instance. Not that I have or will download the code, but if I wished to use my
copy of the code, outside my IIGS box, that's probably the way I'd have to do it.

> and the
> belief is that offering the ROM code for download is a copyright violation.
>
>      In short, we see obvious double-dealing and hypocrisy.

What I see is someone who won't see. That's sad.

Roy