Another Modest Proposal: Pirating vs Archiving

[jeffr@bnr.ca (Jeffrey Robertson)]

In article <4srk6u$b6e@blackice.winternet.com>,
Nathan Mates <nathan@parka.winternet.com> wrote:
>
>   It doesn't matter beans what you think. It's the eys of the courts
>that count for anything, and their decision making process is simple
>enough that we can follow it:
>[...]
>   Usefulness and rarity is _NOT_ an excuse for the general public to
>be able to download pirated stuff. At best, it is a pathetic excuse to
>salve up a conscience that knows that what it's doing is wrong, but
>they have no self-control to do the right thing.

Nathan, what's your opinion of the "don't ask; don't tell" argument
presented for this kind of pirating?  (Or for gays in the US military,
for that matter...)

You're right: it is the court that matters, but it seems likely that
none of these violations will ever make it to any court.. except
the court of public opinion here in csa2.

Of course, I've never visited Asimov, so I don't know what they offer,
but in my opinion, this kind of piracy is acceptable given these
provisions:

 1. The program is no longer commercially available on this
    platform.

 1(a).  Neither the author, nor original copyright holder have
        a competing product available for the platform.  eg,
        Stylewriter GS evolved into AWGS.

 2. Due diligance has been exercised in an attempt to reach
    copyright holders.  (Yes, that's vague.  All "due diligance"
    law is vague.)

 3. If a copyright holder discovers the violation and objects,
    the program is removed and an apology posted.

 4. The operations operates at no charge.  Donations for hard
    drives, WWW costs, etc. may be solicited, but only publicly.
    Ie, after downloading a file, you shouldn't be sent email
    begging for "donations".

 5. Copyright notices are kept intact on the programs (ie, no
    "cracked by FooBar") and in the distribution medium itself
    (ie, the WWW page).  No one should be able to obtain the
    software without knowing they're violating the letter of
    the copyright law.

 6. As part of the "due diligance" search for ownership, a
    person should be identified (probably the author, or the
    company if still in existance) to whom money could be
    sent by downloaders.

Example:  The "Apple Adventure" disk that came with old Apple ][+
systems was a Microsoft release of the old ADVENT game (aka,
Collosal Cave).  Contact MS and ask if you can distribute
disk images.  If they say no, drop it.  If they say yes,
post a copy of their letter of permission.  If they won't
reply, make the image available, and give MS's address for
people to send money to.

Stronger versions of rule 6 could be devised.  For example,
a person requests the disk image, and forwards a cheque to
MS.  The "pirates" get the cheque, forward it to MS, and
email the person the disk image.  This is slower and
clumsier, but even more rigorously demonstrates the pirate's
attempt to honour the copyright.

Comments?
-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------+-----------------
Jeffrey Robertson                    |  jeffr@bnr.ca  |      BNR, Ottawa
"I speak for myself, not BNR" - Me   +----------------+       (Meriline)
"Verbing weirds language" - Calvin                      OC-48 FiberWorld