Very Computer

Quote:> ...hows this for a different angle

Not at all different. It makes absolutely no difference to the law whether a
company is selling something now, or has been closed and gone for 20 years.

Quote:> No it's not strictly legal but neither is copying a page from a book or
> magazine.

There *is* a Fair Use law in the copyright laws. You can copy and quote from
copyrighted material to a reasonable degree, if you give credit, and in cases
where permission is not given, you must get it.

Quote:> Is it wrong

It's just as wrong to copy Star Raiders as it is to copy GNO.
Both can get you put in the slammer.

Some people just don't get it. It's not a case of debate and logic.
The law is explicitly stated for anyone who wants to read it.
If you can't swallow administatize, there's several normal human langauge
books that describe what the law says.

And what the law says is copying copyrighted software is  T H E F T.
No ands, ifs, or howzabouthis. What anyone else thinks is just a personal
opinion. They're welcome to them. They're also welcome to the ranks of
criminals should they wish to join.

Dammit, we *know* that it is *illegal*! I am more concerned with the ethical
implications than the legal ones -- I obey my conscience, not the law. I pay
for *everything* I use (I'm not suggesting that others don't), and contrary
to the opinions of others, I think that developers are entitled to every penny
they charge. But there's no point in upholding copyright law if it isn't doing
*anything* for *anybody*.

Quote:> > No it's not strictly legal but neither is copying a page from a book or
> > magazine.

> There *is* a Fair Use law in the copyright laws. You can copy and quote from
> copyrighted material to a reasonable degree, if you give credit, and in cases
> where permission is not given, you must get it.
> > Is it wrong

> It's just as wrong to copy Star Raiders as it is to copy GNO.
> Both can get you put in the slammer.

Please come back to reality. It's just as illegal to copy Star Raiders as
it is to copy GNO, but I would argue that it isn't "wrong" to do so.

If everyone starts copying a specific piece of software a lot, and the
copyright holder doesn't try to defend his copyright, then it reverts
to the public domain, so if someone did post Aztec to c.b.a2 every week
or so, or disassembled it and published it in a full page adverti*t
of the Wall Street Journal, and the author didn't do anything, *then*
it would be okay to copy it, as the person has given up his or her copyright.

Quote:> Some people just don't get it. It's not a case of debate and logic.
> The law is explicitly stated for anyone who wants to read it.
> If you can't swallow administatize, there's several normal human langauge
> books that describe what the law says.

> And what the law says is copying copyrighted software is  T H E F T.
> No ands, ifs, or howzabouthis. What anyone else thinks is just a personal
> opinion. They're welcome to them. They're also welcome to the ranks of
> criminals should they wish to join.

You are doing your position a disservice by going off the deep end like this.
If the law says something, then debate and logic no longer have any place?
Well, I'm sure Big Brother would love that, but I don't. I'm just as much
a supporter of copyrights as you are, but we're dealing with a case which
lies at the boundaries. If you have some justification other than "it's the
law," I'd like to hear it.

While I don't have a lot of time handy, I think someone could make a
project out of this, finding who owns the copyrights to various
programs and contacting them. And then asking rthem what the current
state of their program is, and whether or not the person would release
it into the public domain or sell the rights to someone.

Ed

--
Ed Watkeys, Sys Admin.  "...The errors of great men are more venerable
Distant Software         because they are more fruitful than the truths

I got into this discussion a bit late (the last 2 messages :) but I
have a question to the person arguing that it is AGAINST THE LAW TO
COPY COPYRIGHTED WORKS. I understand everything you said, and IT
IS against the law, but if someone does it, who is gonna sue him/her?

This is not a cynical or rebellious question. I honestly am wondering:
Who would press charges? Will the government take up the case? The way
I see it, the other person FOR copying software from dead companies is
saying that there is no one to buy the software from, and also no one
who would be so damaged by the pirating that they would sue the
perpetrators. There are a lot of everyday things that people shouldnt
do, but would if no one was around to enforce the law. I am not
advocating disregarding laws, but just pointing out human nature.

I am not sure which side I am on in this issue, but I definitely
support buying or paying shareware fees for Apple II programs. We need
to keep this wonderful community alive!

Robert
--
File: AW esome .sig            REVIEW/SEE/ADMIRE              Escape: Reality
=====|====|====|====|====|====|====|====|====|====|====|====|====|====|====|=


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type mail or use rn commands          Line     Column    8M, 20Mhz CPU Wanted

Quote:> I am more concerned with the ethical implications...

Then try this one on:

Is it ethical to steal something which the law protects as property when you
cannot show a need for that thing which is greater than the owner's need? As
far as I've ever learned, the ethics of theft involves need. It would require
a pretty forceful argument to show you NEED the program.

Quote:> If everyone starts copying a specific piece of software and the copyright
> holder doesn't try to defend his copyright, then it reverts to the public
> domain.

It most certainly does not. A recent case:
A psychologist published a test measuring peoples' ideas on love in a journal.
It was quite popular. It was copied and passed around and quoted for years.
A Boston newspaper decided to publish it in their weekly Sunday suppliment.
They used this argument to defend themselves against his infringement suit.
They lost. He let them off easy - $5,000.

Quote:> You are doing your position a disservice by going off the deep end...

I doubt my statements will affect the copyright laws -- the basis of my
position -- one iota. The law defines the deep end, whether you personally
decide to abide by it or your conscience. I much prefer the deep end myself.
The alternative is shallowness.

I think the original poster had trademarks in mind.  When names like
"Kleenex", "Xerox", and "Coke" become generic, the trademark is lost (I
believe Kleenex did lose theirs a few years back, but please don't post dozens
of followups about which have or haven't).

For this reason, using "UNIX" to refer to a product other than USL's will
get you a *Gram from AT&T (GNO proponents take note).

--

[ Above opinions are mine, Amdahl has nothing to do with them, etc, etc. ]

Quote:> If everyone starts copying a specific piece of software a lot, and the
> copyright holder doesn't try to defend his copyright, then it reverts
> to the public domain, so if someone did post Aztec to c.b.a2 every week

While I agree with most of what you said, you should remember that a
copyright protects more than just the financial worth of an item, concept,
or other diversion. It also protects the integrity of the thing...reverting
to PD threatens that integrity, as anyone can thrash around in the code and
rerelease it without fear of reprisal.

Marc Sira               |

                        '

Quote:>I got into this discussion a bit late (the last 2 messages :) but I
>have a question to the person arguing that it is AGAINST THE LAW TO
>COPY COPYRIGHTED WORKS. I understand everything you said, and IT
>IS against the law, but if someone does it, who is gonna sue him/her?

Let me just say here that we have a semantic gap.  One can copy (or
recode) a program for your own use perfectly legally, as long as you
don't redistribute it.

--
  ///   ____   \\\       | CAUTION:
  | |/ /    \ \| |       | Avoid eye contact.  In case of contact, flush
   \\_|\____/|_//        | mind for 15 minutes.  See a psychiatrist if
       \_)\\/            | irritation persists.  Not to be taken
gberigan `-' cse.unl.edu | seriously.  Keep out of sight of children.

[Early part not quoted to maintain reasonable ratio]

Quote:>...If you copy Star Raiders, assuming that you can't buy it, then no one
>loses money.  That's not wrong.  It may very well still be against the law,
>but it's not wrong -ASSUMING YOU CAN'T BUY IT-.

This seems to say two things.  First, right and wrong are determined by
whether or not someone loses money.  What a horrible definition of right
and wrong!  Possibly an accurate representation of 1990's morality, but
still horrible.

Second, it says that it is not wrong to break, ignore, defy, the law whenever
you don't agree with it.  I though Socrates put that one to rest (with his
life) a couple of millenia ago.

If you don't like a law, fight to get it changed.  But I can not accept the
idea that it is either morally right or morally neutral to defy the law. You
can always move to where the laws are different.  But having or not having
respect for the law _is_ a m*issue in itself.

Phil Albro

Quote:> While I agree with most of what you said, you should remember that a
> copyright protects more than just the financial worth of an item, concept,
> or other diversion. It also protects the integrity of the thing...reverting
> to PD threatens that integrity, as anyone can thrash around in the code and
> rerelease it without fear of reprisal.

Someone suggested that we create a clearinghouse for orphaned software where
it could be sold at decent prices. I think finding new homes for software
that have ceased to be loved is a good idea. Of course that still leaves the
issue of what to do with software whose copyright holder can not be found...

Thsi is the best argument for copyrighting that I've heard. I think the
author's/artist's/programmer's vision intact in his/her/its work is very
important. I think that's why the vanity screens that crackers always put
in the software bothered me almost as much as what they were doing.

Ed

Ed

--
Ed Watkeys, Sys Admin.  "...The errors of great men are more venerable
Distant Software         because they are more fruitful than the truths

Quote:> I am honestly wondering: Who is going to press charges?

For one, the Software Publishers Association. From September 1989 to Ocotber
1990 they filed 40 lawsuits on behalf of publishers, against corporations,
dealers, BBSs and individuals.

For another, an author who may hear about a copy of a program even after it
is no longer sold. People tend to forget that the authors of really old
software are still around. Really old software is less than 15 years old.
I have a DOS 3.1.1 system master - it's 14 years old. Most everything on it
was written by people I could find and talk to.

People talk. Others listen. You never know who. There's folks on this
newsgroup who've been popped for pirated software on a BBS. I know; I've
talked with them. The FBI gets involved in this stuff. When they do, they don't
go around contacting authors to check to see if it's OK. They look for
copyright notices. It doesn't require anyone but the law enforcement officials
to press charges.

A good person to contact for information is Mike Brown, president of Central
Point. Another would be Mary Jane Saunders, general counsel of the S.P.A.

To indicate how big this fight is getting, Facts On File Inc., the people I
blast regularly for trying to copyright previously PD stuff in their Public
Domain On File series, got popped with a multimillion dollar lawsuit
themselves. National Business Academy got slammed for 2.5 mill just for the
pirated stuff they had in 3 of their schools. The US code section 17 Copyright
Law allows for individuals to be liable for up to $50,000 per copy of pirated
software.

Reference: "Warning: Here Come The Software Police", Janet Mason, in Across The
Board, Oct 1990, pp 40-45, The Conference Board, publ.

Oh, sure.   The deserves no respect when the law is an ass.  Stupid
legislators making stupid laws have no special m*virtue.

Quote:>If you don't like a law, fight to get it changed.  But I can not accept the
>idea that it is either morally right or morally neutral to defy the law. You
>can always move to where the laws are different.  But having or not having
>respect for the law _is_ a m*issue in itself.

You're right.  If the law is unethical, respecting the law is unethical.
Tell it to all the Georgians who engage in *sex.
--
Lizzie Borden took an axe, And plunged it deep into the VAX;
Don't you envy people who Do all the thing you want to do?

[long winded argument about morality deleted]

Related question:

How do I get a copy of, say, Rescue Raiders?
I recently played Armor Alley on a Mac and would like to take another look
at RR for old time's sake. Now my friend has a copy, but I don't want to borrow
his, I want to have a copy of my own. Being a law-abiding citizen, I might call
up Three-Sixty and ask them. (note: I haven't actually tried this yet, but
a message on this thread mentioned it) 360 tells me that no, sorry, then don't
sell it anymore, but would I be interested in Armor Alley?

Do I get to look up the author's name and address and send him a check? If so,
for how much money?

-=-=-=-=- S h a r e  a n d  E n j o y ! !  Thank you!  GSYHIAP -=-=-=-=-=-=-

Quote:

>This seems to say two things.  First, right and wrong are determined by
>whether or not someone loses money.

Absolutely NOT!  In this particular case, the only way someone can get hurt
is if they lose money.  I can't think of any other way they'd get hurt.
Everywere I said "lose money", replace it with "gets hurt, loses something,
or is damaged in someway or another".  That's what makes something wrong.
In the case I'm talking about, the "hurt, loss, damage" part is when they
lose money.  You're not saying that losing money ISN'T wrong are you?

Quote:>What a horrible definition of right
>and wrong!  Possibly an accurate representation of 1990's morality, but
>still horrible.

>Second, it says that it is not wrong to break, ignore, defy, the law whenever
>you don't agree with it.  I though Socrates put that one to rest (with his
>life) a couple of millenia ago.

It's not whether or not we -agree- with the law, it's whether or not the
law is right or wrong.  I don't know about you, but I don't lose sleep
over breaking an imm*law.  For example, Soviet Citizens breaking the
law by printing Bibles in underground printing presses.  Sure, breaking the
law is one thing, but when the law is wrong, or pointless, I don't lose
any sleep over breaking it.  Of course, copying old, unsupported games isn't
the same as copying Bibles in cummunist countries, but the point is the same.
Laws don't define right and wrong.  They can be a good guideline, but they're
not the definition of right and wrong.

Laws have loopholes where people can get by with doing what the law intends
for them to not do.  Conversely, since the wording of laws can't cover every
possible scenario, there are instances where the wording may make some things
illegal that the spirit of the law didn't intend and I think that copying
these old programs is a good example of that... an 'anti-loophole' :)

I seriously doubt that any of the old companies would object to you copying
their old software, especially, considering the company isn't around anymore.
And if the copyright falls to the programmer that made it, and you can't
find out who it is, I doubt that he/she would object to it either.  I'm a
programmer.  I've got an old game I wrote back in high school.  I'm the only
one with a copy of it, but if I had published it, closed my company, and
joe blow from East BumbleFlock found a copy of it and couldn't find me, I'd
have absolutely no objection to him copying it.  I'd even encourage it.

In one (maybe more) state, (I forgot which), *sex is against the law.
It's an OOOLD law that has never been changed.  Now, is it wrong for a
married couple to have *sex in Tennessee, but not some other state just
because some scenile old men in a self-righteous society wrote down on a
piece of paper that it's against the law?  Are these people bad people for
breaking the law?  You say people should respect the law.  That's a miniscule
law.  I'm not defending or promoting *sex, but does anyone have any right
telling you how you can or can't make love to your own spouse?

I'm not saying people should break the law whenever they disagree with it.
But when the law is one such as this, when not a single being is hurt from
it, nothing bad becomes of it, good actually comes FROM it, it's not a big
deal, I don't see anything wrong with breaking it.  Breaking the speed limit
is probably worse than breaking this law and cops, judges, lawers, whatever,
could care less if you broke the law by driving a little over 55.

Copying an old game made by a company that doesn't exist anymore is harmless.
That's the point I'm trying to make.  REGARDLESS of what the law says, I'm
talking about the actual act of it.  The law could be anything, but it's
still harmless.  Now, if you feel that breaking the law is wrong because it's
breaking the law, well that's another story.
What you're saying then is the act of breaking the law is wrong.  Regardless
of what the law is.  That's seperate from what the action actually is.  Laws
can come and go.  The action stays the same.  If it's right once, it's right
when the law changes.  Although, some people believe that breaking the law
is a m*offence, regardless of the action, it's just the act of breaking
the law that you consider immoral.  I don't necessarily agree with that, but
that's another issue.  What I'm talking about is the act of copying old,
defunct software from old defunct companies.  That's not wrong.  At the
same time, you may (or may not) be breaking the law, which some would say
is wrong.  But if it IS wrong (it isn't) then that doesn't make the actual
act of copying the game wrong.  There are two things going on here:
1. copying the game.
2. breaking the law.
#1 isn't wrong.  #2 may or may not be wrong.  I'm not debating #2.  If you
really want to debate #2, I'd be happy to (in e-mail).

Quote:>If you don't like a law, fight to get it changed.  But I can not accept the
>idea that it is either morally right or morally neutral to defy the law. You
>can always move to where the laws are different.  But having or not having
>respect for the law _is_ a m*issue in itself.

As I said, defying the law isn't what I'm talking about.  Doing another act,
which may or may not result in the breaking of a law is the issue.  Forget
the law for a second.  Look at the actual issue.  Is it or isn't it wrong.
If it happens to be against the law, well, that's another issue that each
person has to deal with seperately.

Some people CANNOT move to where the laws are different.  Having respect
for the law may or may not be a m*issue.  I don't think it is.  Having
respect for what's right and what's wrong is much more important.  If people
respected the law and not morality, we'd be no better off than China.  It's
law breakers, such as the student protesters in Tienaman square, the
Boston Tea Party participants, the US citizens that refused to pay taxes
to the King of England, and the like that have made America what it is.
(National Anthem playing in the background:)  It's a black woman refusing
to give up her seat on a bus.  She broke the law because the law was WRONG.
Are you saying that she had no respect for the law?  She didn't have respect
for laws that are wrong and neither do I.  Even in 1992 there are laws that
are wrong.  I'll fight them and at the same time, I may break some of them.
Am I wrong in doing so?  I don't think so.

Back to the software issue:
If I'm sitting here in my bedroom and a friend comes in with an old game
that the company has long been gone and the law says I can't copy it and I
really like it, I'm not going to abide by some superficial idea that the
law says I can't so I shouldn't.  Here I am with a game in one hand, and
CopyII+  in the other.  The company's gone.  Why shouldn't I copy it?  Who
does it hurt?  What makes it wrong?  Why is it against the law?  What good
does it do me or society to NOT copy it?  It's not something I'd buy anyway,
because I CAN'T.

Laws are made to prevent people from invading the rights of others or to
prevent the destruction of 'things'.  That's they're sole intent.  In some
very specific situations, the law, unintentionally, goes out of these bounds.
If I were a pre-programmed robot with no sense of right or wrong, other than
pre-programmed laws, I'd have no trouble following orders, but I'm not a
robot.  I can think for myself.  I know what's right and what's wrong.
I don't follow old geasers' around like a lost sheep.  If, for some reason,
a situation comes up where I can't decide what's right or what's wrong,
I'll turn to the law.  Most things I decide for myself that are right are
also legal, but there are a few circumstaces, such as this, where the law
may say otherwise.  I'll usually follow the law.  But, I'm not ashamed to
admit that I break the law by going over 55 or by copying old games.
I'm sure I break the law other times that I'm not even aware of, such as
turning right on red in Georgia.  My actions may not be immoral, but they
may very well be agasint the law.  If I know the law, I respect it.  Just
because I have the ability to decide for myself what's right and wrong,
doesn't mean I don't respect the law.  But one thing I don't respect is
scenile old men imposing more and more restrictions on me in the country
that's supposed to be the leader of the free world, but I'm getting WAAAYY
off topic here.  I could go on and on (and I have) but I think I'll do what's
right and stop here (even though it's not against the law to waste bandwidth,
it's still wrong).

Joe, The Independents - SUNY Buffalo <ub!acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:

Quote:>What I am advocating here is not wholesale piracy.  I am saying that there
>are a lot of neat programs out there that you will never have legitimate
>access too again.  The only way to get to use them is: a) have someone who>
>bought the program ten years ago GIVE it to you outright, or, b) if they are
>unwilling to part with it, get a copy.

I would suggest that there is a third method, although I am sadly becoming
not surprised that it doesn't seem to occur to many people in this discussion:
c) offer to _buy_ it from them!  It seems unlikely they would turn down a
reasonable offer.  You have the right to sell your used software, as long as
the deal includes the original and you don't keep a copy.

You can find old software at garage sales, user group auctions, all sorts of
places where you can become its legitimate owner.  But in the real world, it's
just too easy to find handy rationalizations for why it's "morally right" to
take the easy way out and make a quick copy of a friend's disk.  If people want
to do that on the grounds that they won't get caught at it, and they aren't
hurting anyone, fine.  I only object to the attempts to morally justify it.

Joe's suggestion about the clearing house for old software is a great idea!  If
someone is thinking seriously about doing that and wants some marketing survey
input, add my name to your list of potential customers.

Phil Albro

Quote:>,,,there are instances where the wording may make some things illegal that
>the spirit of the law didn't intend and I think that copying these old programs
>is a good example of that...

This is a good point, as is Ron Dippold's point that:

Quote:>Stupid legislators making stupid laws have no special m*virtue.

<micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!wupost!sdd.hp.com!network.uscd.edu!qualcom.

The fact is, Congress has been debating for a very long time the issue that
the copyright laws were never intended to cover computer programs, and
generally seems to agree that they are poorly suited for the job.  Unfortunately,
no one has been able to come up with adequate revisions to propose that would
not have the same problems as soon as more new technology appears in the
future.

In spite of what you see on TV, even though the laws passed by Congress may
be _passed_ by 'some scenile old men in a self-rightous society' (quoted
from M. Quinn), and indeed many of them are over 35, (sorry, I couldn't resist
that), those laws were almost certainly _composed and worded_ by the young
hotshots fresh out of law school who make up the congressmen's staff.

 When I previously suggested that:

Quote:>If you don't like a law, fight to get it changed.

I was specifically suggesting that if you have what you think are workable
suggestions for improving the copyright laws to make them more reasonable
when applied to computer software, your Congressman would welcome hearing
from you.  It might even make a difference.

In the meantime, if you happen to know that the publisher of an old program
has gone out of business, I don't think you could convince me that you _know_
that they didn't turn the publication rights over to some other company, or
if they didn't (so the rights revert to the author) that you _know_ the author
isn't working on an upgrade, or that you _know_ the author didn't sell the
source code to some magazine that's going to publish a type-it-in version.
Because you _can't_ know all of these things, you also can't objectively
justify the claim that you are morally right in copying your friend's disk.

Phil Albro