Re: Asimov Mirror Sites Access Information

[lee@lcremeans.erols.com (Lee Cremeans)]

In article <20000529211929.15971.00001727@ng-md1.aol.com>, R.A.Guy wrote:

[I've stayed out of this debate until now, but here goes...and before I
start, IANAL.]

>Have a great day DEAN, you protector of those who haven't been asked to be
>protected. Wow, just like the Federal government! Gee, are you a Fed?

It's not the government's bad so much as the media's. The reason why
copyrights and such have become so restrictive here is for one simple
reason: Having them longer would mean that the large entertainment and
software companies (we're talking people like Disney-ABC[1], Time Warner,
Microsoft, etc.) would be able to exert copyright status on their works
longer, meaning more profit for them -- and things like the DMCA and UCITA
make it even easier for them to shove it down consumers' throats by removing
most recourse and gutting Fair Use. Rest assured, these laws weren't passed
for the common good...they were pork-barrel laws made to benefit only big
business (and anyone that thinks like them). I'm sure that if they could,
they'd make copyight an _in perpetua_ property, like a title, but that would
be unconstitutional[2]  

This begs the question, yet again...Does anyone (other than the
aforementioned media giants) really want 100 years to elapse for a work to
fall into the public domain? Sure, you could get it reclassified, but as I'm
sure everyone here has noticed, not everyone wants to go to the trouble. In
today's computer climate, software becomes either obsolete or completely
ingrained very fast. Windows is a good example of the latter; pretty much
all "abandonware" falls into the former, and there's so much of it out there
that I don't think anyone would want to track down every single owner.  I
know some of you dont like the idea of people copying software that isn't
explicitly licensed, since you develop software yourself and don't want to
see it happen to you, but I think all the archives have taken a decent
stance on this...if they get word from the copyright holder that a package
needs to be removed, they'll do it. Honestly, the idea of you developing
software and selling it yourself is a good one, but keep in mind that you
really only have domain over software you write -- only the copyright
holders of the software being debated over can do much. Thusly, all the
bickering and emotionally-charged posturing (and the name-calling done by
people like Quantum_Cat, whom I have had filtered for a long time now)
accomplish nothing -- they just make people tune out, and in some cases,
just leave. 

So, what I'm saying is let the people that want to use Tarnover or Asimov
etc. do what they will, and if they want to, the original copyright holders
will take care of it. Maybe they'll request removal, maybe they'll have the
software reclassified. Who knows? I mean, personally, I'd rather let people
get their systems up and running now, go back to developing or gaming or
helping out newbies etc, and not worry about it. This is an issue that
should take care of itself.

-lee

[1] Notice that the latest copyright extension act was passed very close to
the expiry date of the copyright on _Steamboat Willie_, the cartoon that
made Mickey Mouse famous -- the rumour is that Disney was a rather huge
sponsor of the bill. The line I remember hearing is that Disney was afraid
someone would defame Mickey's good name if the copyright lapsed...of course,
this is BS, because Disney could still sue for trademark dilution -- unlike
copyrights, trademarks can be renewed forever, as long as the mark hasn't
been diluted.
 
[2] As for a long-term solution, I think copyright law should be made more
favorable to the general public, not just corporate America (face it, he who
has the gold makes the rules here). I like one of the suggestions given by a
poster to Slashdot...standard "shrink-wrap" copyright on computer software
should be limited to 5 years, with a possible 5-year renewal. The only
licenses I'd like to see acting anywhere near _in perpetua_ are ones that
actually promote free copying and source viewing, like the BSD and GPL
terms. I don't know if this will ever happen, what with the huge amount of
money being poured into Congress by the aforementioned media people, but it
doesn't hurt to try.

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|      Lee Cremeans -- Manassas, VA, USA  (WakkyMouse on WTnet)      |  
|         lcremeans@erols.com | http://wakky.dyndns.org/~lee         |