Re: Law

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Todd P. Whitesel writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:
> 
> >     Law must be flexible. The alternative is an impossible enforcement
> >load and the absence of law. The idea behind copyright law is that, with
> >very few exceptions, it is left to the copyright holder to decide
> >whether or not some action regarding the copyrighted material is a
> >violation requiring legal action. If the copyright owner does not
> >request an activity cease and/or does not call upon law enforcement
> >authorities, then, as far as the Law is concerned, there is no illegal
> >activity.
> 
> Wrong. The activity does not become legal.

     When the Law as represented by those with legal standing and law
enforcement authorities treats an activity as legal, then, it is
reasonable to conclude that the activity is legal.



> Instead the copyright weakens
> and may be more easily challenged in the future.

     As was noted in an earlier post by Supertimer, it is the monetary
gain obtained by a thief which might be unrecoverable-- and, even that
requires showing that the owner was aware of the unathorized selling of
his/her product. The copyright itself is in no danger.

     Ground, A2-Cal-tech, GS-WorldView, Asimov, Uni-kl.de, and several
other Apple II archives obtain no monetary benefit from the software
they maintain. On-line services, of course, do obtain a monetary benefit
by offering downloads of copyrighted software belonging to others.



> But as long as the copyright
> is recognized by the Law, violations of it _are_ illegal, whether they are
> prosecuted or not.
>

     Circle-speak. You state the obvious as though it makes some point.
Of course, violations of law are illegal. Now you need to connect this
observation to some aspect of reality.



> >> So perhaps 'those' are vigilantes, but certainly not pirates.
> 
> >     Perhaps they are both. Vigilantes are those who presume to take the
> >law into their hands rather than abide by actions of legally constituted
> >authorities.
> 
> And how would you classify someone who makes decisions about copyrighted
> material without permission from the holder of that copyright?
>

     Everyone, with the possible exception of the Csa2 Treasure Chest
Project manager, makes decisions about copyrighted material without
consulting copyright holders. Every archive maintains almost nothing but
copyrighted material. Do you seriously claim that all of this software
is present with the express permission of the copyright holders?


 
> >     Those who attack Apple II archives have no legal authority. They
> >are not pleased with the actions of copyright holders or of legally
> >constituted enforcement authorities and, so, they presume to engage in
> >campaigns of threats and slander with the object to destroy. They are,
> >quite literally, outlaws.
> 
> As are those archive sites which adopt a stance of "if we never hear from
> the copyright holders then what we're doing is fine and legal."
>

     Now you seem to speak as a vigilante.

     Over and over again we have heard threats, read posts about this or
that copyright holder being informed, and waded through long threads
filled with rants against some archive. Surely, by now, any and all Law
enforcement agencies have heard every conceivable charge.

     Asimov remains. Indeed, evidently, a new GS-Asimov will soon be in
operation.

     If legally constituted Law enforcement agencies believed Asimov and
similar sites were engaged in software piracy, do you not suppose the
sites would have been shut down long ago?


     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?


 
> 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.



Rubywand