Re: Apple II Reference Manual ("Red Book")

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <38fb9c8a.35849451@news>,
Jeff Blakeney <CUTblakeney@home.com> wrote:
 
> On 17 Apr 2000 17:42:10 +0200, pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)
> wrote:
> 
>> In article <38fa44d2.842863496@news>,
>> Jeff Blakeney <CUTblakeney@home.com> wrote:
>>> All I'm doing is pointing out that making it available without the
>>> copyright holders permission is illegal.
>> 
>> Which of course is such an obvious truth that the point doesn't
>> even have to be made.
> 
> So why are we talking about this then?
 
Dunno -- you're the one insisting on bringing it up over and over again.
 
> Apparently you agree with me.
 
It's not really a matter of agreement or not.  1+1=2 -- do you agree
or disagree?  :-))))
 
> Now if we could just get people to label and warn people about the
> illegal stuff we'll be doing much better.  Not perfect, but at least
> better.
 
Warn about what?  I don't think the people who downloads such stuff
for their personal use is at any risk at all.
 
>>> or trying to justify distributing it illegally or something similar.
>> 
>> Well, there are some justifications in doing this.
> 
> You can justify it all you want, it still won't become legal.
 
I never claimed it did.  Likewise it's illegal to cross the street
against a red light, but still people finds justifications for doing it.
 
> If you feel you have valid reasons for ignoring a copyright, then go
> ahead but don't try to convince people that what you are doing is legal,
 
I don't think I ever claimed it was technically legal.  Could you quote
me where I said so?  I think not....
 
> admit that you are breaking the law and don't get upset if someone
> calls you a thief.
 
Even if I would follow all laws flawlessly (including obeying
copyrights even in those cases where they no longer make sense),
someone could still call me a thief.  Such exclamations are usually
based on emotion more than on facts.
 
BTW if I would break the copyright on something which no longer has
any value - what would I have "stolen"?  The copyright owner didn't
lose anything, and I didn't gain anything (except perhaps some fun).
 
Suppose someone has a stone he likes, keeping it on, say, his desk.
Next, suppose I break in and take the stone -- then I would be a
thief.  Next, suppose the owner lost interest in his stone and threw
it out in the street -- some days later I walk by, find it, pick it
up and keep it.  Would that make me a thief too?  According to your
logic it would, since I didn't locate the previous owner and ask for
his permission to keep the stone.
 
> By the way, the part of my previous message you were replying to was
> poorly written on my part and didn't come out meaning what I had
> intended.
> 
> As to the rest of your post, I don't want to create a reply that is
> over 200 lines long so I'm going to try to cut this short.  Besides,
> most of what I was going to say is just repeating what I've already
> said many times and the points I'm covering below don't really apply
> to what we've been talking about anyways.
> 
> Police and courts are in place to enforce the law, not defend it.
 
What's the difference really?  Society needs defense against those who
breaks laws - that's why we have police and courts.  If the defense is
successfull, you can call it "enforcement".
 
> Prisons are there as a method of punishment for some people who break
> the law.
> 
> I would hardly say I'm being "intense" in discussing this.
 
I think you are....
 
> I'm simply replying to messages just like I do any other message.
> If I was being intense, I'd probably be using much stronger language.  :-)
 
OK, let's call it "persistent" then....
 
> As to my saying that it doesn't matter how old a copyright is, I
> thought it was fairly obvious that if a copyright expires, that the
> product is no longer copyrighted.  If you ask me how old the copyright
> on a product that was copyrighted 200 years ago is, I would tell you
> that the product is no longer copyrighted.
 
Which means it does matter how old it is: no copyright lasts forever...
 
> As to distributing copyrighted works with the owner's permission, that
> is just a silly question.  If the owner has changed the copyright,
> then of course it is legal to distribute it in the new way(s) the
> owner allows.
 
You didn't mention that though -- to mention that is just as important
as to mention breaking copyrights are illegal.
 
> Finally, in relation to the use of my time, I'm talking about working
> on my own original software that currently doesn't exist for the Apple
> II.  I'm not talking about writing a version of someones else's
> product.
 
You mean stuff like TCP/IP stacks etc?  There are TCP/IP stacks
for CP/M-80, but I've never herd about anyone for the Apple II.
Shouldn't be impossible though -- the CP/M TCP/IP stacks runs in
something like 30k of RAM.
 
> I'm better off spending my time working on NEW software than I am
> spending time trying to get stuff reclassified.  There are people that
> either aren't programmers at all or others who could contribute by
> getting stuff reclassified while others continue to produce new stuff.
> Seems like a real efficient use of resources to me.
> 
> By the way, producing a product that does exactly the same thing as
> another one can be just as illegal as pirating the original product.
 
Now you make me wonder: are you REALLY a programmer?  Are you sure
you're not actually a lawyer?   <g>
 
> But like I said, most of this doesn't relate to the discussion of
> whether putting the Red Book on a web page is legal or not.
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch