Re: Net piracy?

[bazyar@netcom.com (Jawaid Bazyar)]

dkl@crl.com (David K. Leikam) writes:

>  re: Lost classics, piracy, etc.


>  Amen, bro.  Copyright is an equitable procedure, not a legal one. For 
>those who don't know the difference, please shut up and go learn.

  So, the Copyright Act of 1976 isn't a legal procedure?

>  Copyright exists only insofar as someone is there to complain about 
>violations. No complaint, no violation, and no copyright. It's just that 
>simple.  See previous paragraph.

  Copyright exists by law. You are thinking about patents.

>  The "Theft is theft, plain and simple" argument strikes me as moronic. 
>(I hope I'm really offending somebody, here.)  I have this friend who 
>just bought a futon to replace his sleeper sofa. Problem, how to get rid 
>of the sofa he doesn't want anymore, without having to haul it off 
>somewhere? Easy. Put it out by the curb, and little elves come to take it 
>away overnight.

  We're not talking about futons. We're talking about easily
duplicated intellectual property.

>  By his actions, he indicates VERY clearly, he doesn't want the thing, 
>he's abandoning it, please somebody come take it away.

  Oh, does it? Perhaps you are misinterpreting his actions? Perhaps
his action was: "well, nobody buys this program anymore because
it is pirated to death". Your piracy on top of the original
piracy (in this case) does not justify itself.
  The Copyright law is _extremely_ specific. You can't just wish
it out of existence, as much as you'd like to, to rationalize your
breaking the law.

>  This is called, "Abandonment". See the first paragraph, above.

  Not in the realm of Intellectual property it's not.

>  Now, if I cannot anywhere legitimately purchase something, and the 
>putative owner cannot be found by a diligent search, or clearly indicates 
>indifference toward selling same, wherein is "theft"? 

  Let's say there are four wondrous opals (of a family) in the world.
None of the owners care to sell it to you. Does that mean you can
steal it?

>  BTW, "theft" is a legal term, precisely defined, and includes the 
>provisio that the thing "stolen" has value. See the first paragraph. A 
>thing with zero value cannot be taken by "theft". See the first paragraph.

  Ah. But that computer program has value to you, because you are
bothering to copy it, and rationalize its theft.

  Secondly, the value of a thing is determined not unilaterally by
you, but by you and the owner of that thing.

>  ON THE OTHER HAND, morally speaking...say I takes your money and sells 
>you a product like an accounting program for yer biz.  Later on it messes 
>up, and you take losses because of that. I use my levitical license and 
>my legal nonexistence (Oh, THAT corporation? Dissolved 10 years ago!) to 
>escape any moral obligation to even get the thing running again, let 
>alone compensate you for the damage... your comments on the morality of this?

  Oh. So you want to enslave anyone who ever writes a computer program
to support it for as long as you desire? It's either that, or you
have the "right" to steal it? 

>   (I have a brick poised to throw at anyone who says, "2 wrongs don't 
>make a ..."   Mon, what do you think civil justice IS? It's a sanctioned 
>second wrong, the taking of the property of the defendant by force (that 
>of the state). And criminal justice? The taking of life & liberty by 
>force of the state. Get a grip.)

  Civil justice is the objective use of retributive force. It is
only properly performed by the Government.  Individuals who seek
"justice" on their own or make their own laws regardless of
those enforced by the government are criminals.

-- 
 Jawaid Bazyar              |   Like UNIX? Like your Apple IIGS? Then ask
 Procyon, Inc.              |   me about GNO/ME for the Apple IIgs!   
 bazyar@netcom.com          |   P.O Box 620334
 --Apple II Forever!--      |   Littleton, CO 80162-0334   (303) 781-3273