Re: Law

[toddpw@ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:

>     Why do you reject the clear evidence of a long established
>situation? What is there in the intent and method of copyright law which
>seems improper? Why do you reject an arrangement which benefits both
>users and copyright owners?

Search my back posts: I have not said that I am in favor of shutting down
the FTP sites. I have supported many of the arguments used against them,
because they were valid arguments for which I had some relevant experience.

The point I keep making, and which you keep dodging, is that unauthorized
distribution of copyrighted software is illegal PERIOD. There are no
mitigating circumstances that make it automatically become legal. This is
true no matter how small the chances of prosecution. Until the copyright
expires, is overturned, or is excepted by the owners, the distribution
must be classed as unauthorized and is therefore illegal.

The law is very clear about this; stop trying to explain it away.

>> While they may be able to get away with it, and probably won't suffer life
>> crushing law-suits as a result, unless and until the copyright holder gives
>> permission for archiving their software, doing it is illegal according to
>> the law.
>     If you truly believe this, then turn your attentions first to the
>for-profit Apple II on-line service sites which maintain archives of
>copyrighted software they do not own. Let them meet the standard set by
>our Treasure Chest Project. When you have brought the for-pay sites to
>an acceptable state of purity, there will be a model for Legality toward
>which mere non-profit archives may strive.

Please give examples. I was A2PRO librarian for 5 years, and we were
positively ANAL about not letting on any software that had unresolved
legal questions. I don't recall any problems with the things we did
carry, but that may have been because we were serious about dealing with
complaints quickly.

Do not try to invoke the childish "somebody else got away with it so you
have to make them behave before I will" defense. Not only is it unlikely
that on-line services wilfully engage in copyright violations (their users
might, but the services don't) -- it also does not change the legality of
said copyright violations.

That said, however, let me add that I'm perfectly fine with the FTP sites
as long as they do not try to lie about the legality of what they're doing.
If they showed respect to the few companies still trying to make a little
money in the Apple II market, I think a lot of us would have no problem
quietly looking the other way while volunteers attempt to track down the
copyright holders to make things official.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu