Re: Note to QC & PG

[Liam Busey <xxx@xxx.net>]

**** **** wrote:
> 
> Sandra,
>     I like this thinking too. Unfortunately, we are in no position to > 'let' Apple do anything. And it's doubtful we could convince them. The > only real solution would be legislation curtailing intellectual > property rights. Renewable copyright permits, 5 years a piece, during > which the company or individual has to make the software reasonably > available for sale. After each 5 year period, the author can choose to > let the permit lapse, and it becomes public domain, or renew it. 3 > renewals max. Copyrighted works that have existed for more than 15 > years, would be permitted a single 5 year permit.

That's rather restrictive. In fact, it's shorter than the copyright
terms laid out in the constitution. I suspect you'll have a hard time
getting any support.
 
>     Will this ever happen? No. Not even close. Too much money 
> involved.

That and your terms are unreasonable to creators.

> Is this a good thing? No, money is not good in this situation. You 
> see, people deserve money, some even deserve wealth. Those who create > deserve reimbursement, and even incentive to go on creating. Megacorps > don't deserve either of these things.

Aren't megacorps made up of people too. What makes people in megacorps
undeserving of money where as smaller groups are? 

> Even individuals who continue to milk an old creation for all its 
> worth are abusing this system. It serves no longer as incentive,

To them perhaps not, but to others most definately. For example, BLANK
invented BLANK and through royalties will never have to work again.
Would not knowledge of such person encourage inventions from other
people?

> and is by any means well past the reimbursement phase.

That's for Congress to decide.

> Usually, when someone or some company is the only source for a 
> particular good, and they have complete control of how much to charge > for it, this is called a monopoly.

Yes it is. Intellectual property laws grant limited monopolies to
encourage people to create. This is generally seen as a good thing.

 
>     But this is only ethical and moral, as QC would conclude, because > it's legal.

Shouldn't you try your best to uphold the law so long as it's not
unethical or immoral?

> Really, those who have tried to work within the system don't spout off > this idealistic bullshit, about being able to change it from within. 
> Hell, every once in a while they do toss you a crumb, but they don't 
> even bother to hide the loaf from sight while doing it. They actually > know what it's like. I used to think that too, now I just ignore the 
> system. It's broken.

And now we come to the heart of the matter. If you think the system is
so broken that it's beyond any hope of repair, abandoned copyrighted
Apple II software is the least of your worries. Ignoring the system will
only hasten it's fall. Remember, you are but one man among millions.
Your voice will not be significant unless you can compel others to share
your view. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
 
>     Those of you who think it can remain in it's relatively tolerable > state don't have a clue. Maybe not true for everything, but in this 
> case, it's either getting better or it's getting worse. And it for 
> damn sure isn't getting better. 

I'm going to assume that we're talking about copyright instead of the
system in general.

> Eventually, those who fervently believe in copyright protection will 
> be gone, because they'll either be getting reamed exponentially more 
> so than happens now, or they'll be forced to 'pirate', because the 
> only alternative is living in caves.

The only reason why copyright laws have gotten so draconian as of late
is that it's not an important issue for most people. The only people who
care about it outside of buisnesses are the actual creators, unix
people, emulator users, and a few music enthusiasts. A small voiceless
minority. Once intellectual property laws start pissing off the average
citizen, progress will soon be made. With legislation like the DMCA and
UCITA were probably no more than 40 years from an outcry (everyone
screams 40 years! I back into my cave). 

> Contrary to popular pirate-sympathetic belief,

Pirate-sympathetic belief eh? I thought you folks only believed in
violating the copyrights of 'abandonware'. Oh well, I guess there wasn't
a distintion after all.

> they don't live in them now, but just wait. Haha.

I fail to see how continued respect for Intellectual would force me to
live in a cave. Would pirates force me to flee there perhaps? ;)

> The world of the physical may still be full and strong in life, but 
> it's now possible to see that it isn't immortal. Everything will be 
> software and information, some day.

You can ignore those moronic technology columns. The Matrix is not upon
us yet.
 
> John

Liam Busey