Re: Net piracy?

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

In article <30eh52$2g8@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
James L Brookes <jamesb@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>In article <30e9q9$5ek@bmerha64.bnr.ca>, Jeffrey Robertson
><jeffr@bmerha2a.bnr.ca> wrote:
>
>
>There's only one more
>thing for me to say, and that is that I will fight people like you to preserve
>the rights of software programmers.  

I can't let you have the last word :-)
I'd appreciate it if you (or anyone) could explain to me how the rights of
programmers are not being adequately protected _by existing law_.
(Actually, a useful distinction could be drawn between the rights of the
copyright holder and the actual author.  These are not necessarily the
same person, and the holder is not necessarily going to act in the best
interests of the programmer.  Trivial example:  Someone wants to release
the program on a CD ROM, paying a royalty to the holder, which the author
should get a slice of.  The holder refuses.  Who suffers?  The public
and the author.)

Is it inherantly unfair that the holder must pursue and prosecute
violators?  How does this fit with "innocent until proven guilty"?
(Note that the violator is presumed innocent, yet the burden of
proof is on the genuinely innocent party.)

Again, my position has been misrepresented somewhat by people in this
group, so I'll emphasize it agaiin.  I don't support pirating of software
that the author/copyright holder does not want pirated.  I do support
the so-called pirating of software that the holder is not distributing,
and does not _appear_ to care about.  I believe that existing copyright
law gives the holder the opportunity to complain if they do in fact care,
and also adequately protects the so-called pirate if he was right
in assuming the holder doesn't care.

I do not believe anyone is being harmed by the pirating of programs
like "Alien Rain", and I believe the general Apple II community would
benefit.  The only reason I am making such a fuss over this issue
(besides the fact that I find the subject interesting) is that it could
benefit the II community.  That's why I get ticked off when people
tell the Net that I hate Apple IIs.

>
>>Redefining theft to suit personal beliefs or for convenience is not,
>>in my opinion, a useful way to address this problem.  Brand new laws must
>
>Huh?  All laws are written to suit personal beliefs.  As for convenience...
>that is totally irrevelant.  This has nothing to do with convenience, it
>relates to just compensation.

What I meant by convenience is that it would be easy to prosecute pirates
by simply redefining their copyright violations to be something it
isn't: theft.  For that matter, you could redefine it to be murder.
Or tresspassing.  I use convenience in the same sense as "a marriage of
convenience".  As for "personal beliefs", I meant the belief that
pirating is so wrong that laws should be arbitrarily redefined to
aid the prosecution thereof.  Granted all laws reflect personal belief,
but in this case, the beliefs are at odds with the generally understood
meaning and intent of the law.

>
>>be written, and I hope they will be soon.
>
>On this we agree.  I just disagree about the content of the laws.

Sorry, do you mean the contents of the current laws, or what the
new laws should be?

>|          James Brookes                    jamesb@ecst.csuchico.edu       |

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