Re: Net piracy?

[jeffr@bmerha2a.bnr.ca (Jeffrey Robertson)]

In article <309c1t$64k@news.iastate.edu>,
Ian Schmidt <irsman@iastate.edu> wrote:
>In article <307cd2$4vb@crl4.crl.com> dkl@crl.com (David K. Leikam) writes:
>
>>   Good. Being offended is an excellent start.  Your problem's not just 
>>ignorance, it's your pride in being ignorant, and your determination to 
>>avoid any sort of enlightenment.
>
>Ahh, I get it.  I disagree with you, so I'm ignorant.

First of all, I'm the guy who more-or-less started all this by posting a
long-winded article saying that piracy = copyright violation ^= theft.
I'd like to say I don't think you, or any of the folks who
have been posting with the same opinion are ignorant, except perhaps
insofar as you are unclear on some of the points on copyright law,
which I myself know only a little about.

>>To take a thing the owner has clearly stated he doesn't want 
>>anymore is not theft.
>
>Sure, but none of the owners of the software have made any such
>statement, with a few well-defined exceptions made possible by the Lost
>Classics project on GEnie.

Right, but remember it's up to them to complain when the copyright is
violated.  They don't have to voice an opinion one way or the other
before that happens, and neither does a archiver (aka pirate) have to
look for one before pressing the CD.  It makes sense to try and get
the holder's permission before including the program, but I don't think
the law requires it.  On a pragmatic level, one can only spend so much
time looking for something that might very well not exist.

>I read IEEE's official guide to software copyright, as well as several
>legal texts on the subject.  That work for ya?

Yup.  You're ahead of me there.  Where can I get a hold of the IEEE document?
Does this document reflect existing law, or is it just a "would be nice"
opinion paper?

>[snip snip snip]
>
>>   However, in the latter case, to your 'Theft is theft, plain an 
>>simple', the only remaining answer I have is, "You don't know what you're 
>>talking about, plain and simple".
>
>Heh heh heh.   Theft of potential licensing and other revenues is theft
>last time I checked.  Just ask any of the countless people who've sued
>over movies or songs being ripped off.

Actually, this would seem to prove _my_ point.  A lawsuit implies the
law of torts, doesn't it?  I mean, you don't sue over theft per se, you
sue over the effect of the theft.  So basically, these people were suing
over a copyright infringement.  This was a civil suit, not a criminal one,
right?

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