Re: Law

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Todd P. Whitesel writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:
> 
> >     Granted, there have, for years, been those who seek to wreck Apple
> >II archive sites and take away user access to old Apple II software.
> >Their attack, destroy, and rob tactics would, ideally, seem fit the
> >traditional definition of "pirate".
> 
> Except that they primarily attack sites which appear to have broken the
> law first. Granted they could have been more patient with the lawbreakers,
> but it's become obvious that some people seem to think that "whatever makes
> the most sense is right" when that is not in fact how the law operates --
> the definition of 'most sense' being somewhat subjective. The law is merely
> our best attempt to arrive at something objectively described which society
> agrees shall be enforced until such time as the law is changed. But once
> enacted it is indeed the law.
>

     Man's law is 'law as written' _and_ 'law as implemented'. It is why
we have judges and juries and prosecuters and many other definers of
"lawful".

     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.

  
 
> 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.

     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.
 

> 
> >     Unfortunately, there are few clashes with more potential for name
> >calling and bitterness than those between persons at Level 4 and persons
> >at Level 5 or higher. Each side, remember, is convinced of the rightness
> >and goodness of its position. So, to some extent, "_Knowing_" right from
> >wrong merely fuels the flames.
> 
> Excellent summary. Remember, however, that being aware of the phenomenon
> does not make you immune to it. It applies to you, me, Nathan, and anyone
> else who has expressed strong opinions here. I hope we can all at least
> agree on this much!
>

     Yes; we can agree on that.


Rubywand