Re: Asimov performs a valuable service; so why fight over it

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

tward@XXXXenteract.com writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
> >      Otherwise, it is standard practice to let the copyright owner
> > decide whether or not he/she disapproves of the treatment of his/her
> > property and whether or not to call upon the legal system for action.
> > The copyright holder is the first legal 'court' in matters involving
> > his/her property.
> 
> By your logic, it is okay for someone to violate the copyright law as long
> as he/she doesn't get caught. Do you also believe it is okay to murder
> someone or rob a bank as long as you don't get caught? Don't tell me it's
> not the same thing. The law is the law.

     Law, especially long-established law, is generally set up to be
reasonable. One of the most important features of a law is that it be
enforceable. Obviously, there is no way for the relatively small number
of law enforcement persons to watch for violations of copyright law and
swoop down on offenders. Law enforcers would be doing nothing else and,
even then, there would be no way to enforce copyright laws in such a
manner.

     Another important feature of a law is intent. The solution to the
problem of copyright law enforcement was to give creators copy rights
and to attach official constraints on how others might use copyrighted
material. It was always understood that the restrictions on use would
not be adhered to by everyone and, in some cases, hardly anyone. The
primary intent is to prevent commercial exploitation. The logic behind
this intent is obvious.

     The observation that the copyright holder is, in general, the first
'court' of resort for copyright questions involving the holder's
property is not some ethereal construction, it is reality. The copyright
holder has at his/her disposal the force of Law. The force is instituted
in the language of Law. It is left up to the copyright holder to decide
whether or not to invoke the force of Law at his/her disposal. No other
system for supporting copy rights would be workable.


     When an archive site makes an old out of print piece of Apple II
software available, what, really is it doing? It is, in effect, saying:
"Yes; we know that this action is in opposition to official constraints
on use of this item. We believe this action harms no one and benefits
many. However, if it is the decision of the copyright owner that the
software be removed, it will be."

     The legal system for supporting copyrights anticipates many such
situations as the above. It never intended that enforcement persons
chase down children making posters from magazine pictures, movie renters
who make a personal copy of a tape, or archive sites maintaining old out
of print software. It counts upon copyright owners to decide whether or
not invoking the force of Law is necessary or desirable.

     To speak of "Violations of the Law" in such cases and to equate
pasting copyrighted magazine pictures on a school poster with bank
robbery and murder is nonsense.

     The Law is, indeed, the Law. A logical, reasonable, Legal way has
been established to support copy rights. Some persons may not like the
system. They may wish that it would conform to some 'black and white'
view of things; but, that is not the way things are. The system deals
with reality and it works.

 ....

> 
> Your argument is totally invalid. AppleWorks 5.0 is an "old" version.
> Would you agree that it could be given away free of charge? How about
> Spectrum 2.0?

     Why stop there? How about SC-4 or Tombraider II?  Once again, you
insist upon ignoring reality and common sense. Do you truly require a
definition of "old out of print Apple II software"? 


> 
> >      It will be interesting to watch and see what happens. Perhaps
> > Intrec will request that the file be removed. Perhaps not. If Intrec
> > requests that the file be removed and it disappears from the archive,
> > then we shall have a demonstration that the archive does respect owner
> > rights and that 'the process works'.
>
> If Asimov respected copyright owners, it would attempt to contact them
> before giving away their software for free. I'm not talking about out of
> print software, I'm talking about currently available software. Common
> sense should tell you that if InTrec is still selling ProTERM you should
> not give away =any= version of it without InTrec's permission.

     There, we agree. While InTrec may decide to leave a version of
ProTERM-A2 on Asimov, just the fact that the one present is labeled "...
3.1" would be ample cause for obtaining InTrec's permission. I do not
know whether or not this permission was obtained. If it was, fine. If it
was not, then Asimov made an error which it should correct.



Rubywand