Re: CD of all Files on Asimov

[swhite@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu (Steve White)]

In article <26SEP199606341035@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca
(Mitchell Spector) wrote:


>     I really think _something_ should be done to archive and preserve
> software so it's around years from now.


Archiving information for historical purposes is different from piracy.

The paper analogy is, of course, a library. The library BUYS books and
archives them for others to review and use. Only one person can use the
book at one time, and copying the book for oneself on a xerox is forbidden
-- violates copyright. Many times libraries pay more for a book; the
publisher charges them more as a license fee, since the publisher knows
the book will be read by many.

If you wish to buy and archive software, great. If you can arrange it so
that you have a license to do what a library does -- loan or rent the
material to others, in such a way that the copyright is preserved --
better.

But using the archive argument to justify asimov won't work, because
asimov isn't in the business of "archiving." It's in the business of
piracy.


>     Sometimes laws need to be changed.


Lobby to change them. In the meantime, it's a law we can with live with.
No fundamental human or civil rights are being violated by respecting
current copyright law. The langauge issue in Quebec is not a good analogy
for an issue of copyright.

I agree that Choplifter should be preserved the same way as a Rembrandt.
But we can't just duplicate a Rembrandt without a license from the owner.
Ditto for Choplifter.



steve