Argh

[Kelli Halliburton <kelli217NOkeSPAM@crosswinds.net.invalid>]

Somebody needs to go around and start this argument in all the
other orphan platform newsgroups. At least that way I won't have
to cringe only when I read csa2.

What's the status of C64 abandonware? Atari 400/800/XL/ST?
Spectrum? Sinclair? Vectrex? ADAM? TI 99/4A? TRS-80? Somebody
should be going around stirring crap in all of those newsgroups
about "you're not allowed to do this" v. "it isn't hurting
anyone" and then we can have a full-fledged Usenet war, like
they used to have in the old days about such things as quoting
style in posting messages and indentation style in coding and vi
v. emacs and pine v. elm and and and... AAAAAAAHHHHHH!

I suppose the best thing to do would be, in the case of software
for which no one can find the copyright holder, write new
software to replace the functionality of the old. Too bad if you
were attached to the old software, eh? That's the nature of
dealing with an orphan platform -- when something is gone, it's
gone. Hope you made backups. Oh, but what if you were using
productivity software that stored your data in an obscure,
proprietary format? Again, too bad. You should have kept a hard
copy. You should have used a program that stored your data in a
known format.

One of the benefits of using an orphan platform is the huge
library of old software that exists for that platform. But you
can't get any of that software, so why get involved with the
platform? Because of the new software? Oh yes, development for
orphan platforms is occurring at such a prodigious rate! Why, in
the past year, more than TEN new programs were released for the
Apple II alone! And there were upgrades to 20 more! WOW!!!

Technically speaking, software licenses are transferable and
renewable.

Transferable: If you have a one-user exclusive license for a
piece of software, you can sell or give it away to someone else,
provided you provide the buyer with any and all media in your
possession that hold a copy of the software, and don't keep a
copy for yourself or to distribute to others.

Renewable: If you have that license, you are entitled to at
least one working copy of that software, and if you can show
that you are a license holder and that you no longer have a
working copy of that software and did not purposefully or
through neglect destroy your working copy/copies, you are within
your rights to secure a copy of that software from another
source, so long as that copy is not registered for the exclusive
use of another license holder.

The legal issue of torts come into play in this case, as well as
achieving a specific intent. Most criminal laws seek to stop a
specific type of harm from occurring. Copyright laws seek to
protect authors from being denied the right to benefit from
their works. It is *because* of the simpler nature of copying
that came about with the invention of movable type (and
subsequent advances) that copyright was invented. In the days
when all books had to be copied by hand, nobody cared if you
copied somebody else's work: you had to put your own sweat into
it, so it was not something one undertook frivolously. With the
invention of movable type, one could set the type of a page once
and then create multiple copies of it, and if the copies were
sold, the author might not see any of the proceeds, without
copyright.

In an idealized world, the author would create simply for the
joy of creation and the edification of others, and no thought
would be given to monetary gain. But in the real world, the
possibility exists that the author's sole means of supporting
himself is his creative work. So to prevent someone else from
appropriating the author's work and profiting from the
appropriation and leaving the author without compensation,
limitations were set on the ways works can be copied.

In all likelihood, it could be very easily argued that in the
case of computer software for orphaned and/or obsolete
platforms, the viable lifetime for a work (that is, the duration
of the time period in which: an author can reasonably expect a
non-trivial compensation for his creative efforts, or a
publisher can reasonably expect a net gain on his publication
efforts) is much shorter that for other fixed and tangible
works. Ten years from publication or twelve years from creation
(whichever is shorter) seems a reasonable approximation, though
the exact length is open for discussion at this stage. It could
easily be argued that the copyright laws as they stand need to
be modified to allow for this difference in viable lifetime. It
may be argued further, that in the absence of an identifiable
agent for the copyright holder for a piece of software that has
passed the end of its viable lifetime, that the work may be
treated as 'open licensed,' my own term, meaning that until an
objection is issued by an agent for the copyright holder, the
work may be freely distributed as though it were in the public
domain.

HOWEVER, such an argument has not yet been made before a court
of law, much less upheld. And so we must currently abide by the
laws which exist, challenge them by means of test cases (and
argue these points before a court of law, with the possibility
of getting the law changed), or opt for civil disobedience. It
seems that many of the regular listers of this newsgroup have
opted for the third choice, and others for the first. No one
seems to have considered the second option.

I hereby suggest that a test case be set up. I hope you can find
a prosecutor willing to argue the case.

By the way, I am not a lawyer. :) So don't ask me to help.

Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com