🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec14.102041.24369@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
>
>And, if the software cannot be found in stores, and the company
>is out of business or unreachable, then I wouldn't see any
>ethical problem with copying the software.  In fact, since 
>it would be so reasonable to copy it, there is very little 
>chance of any problems even if it is against the letter of the
>law.

You're right that there is only a small chance you'll get into legal
trouble for copying out of print games.  But someone, somewhere owns
the copyright on those games, even if the company that originally published
them has long since gone out of business, and by copying them you're
essentially stealing from them.  If your neighbor had piles and piles
of fifty dollar bills that he wasn't using, and had no plans to spend, would
you argue that it would be correct from an ethical standpoint to steal
cash from him?



-- 
Jim Wong (jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu)

jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>essentially stealing from them.  If your neighbor had piles and piles
>of fifty dollar bills that he wasn't using, and had no plans to spend, would
>you argue that it would be correct from an ethical standpoint to steal
>cash from him?

Careful... most people seem to feel that it's perfectly okay to steal
from their neighbor whether or not he/she has piles of it and whether
or not he/she plans to use it.

The obvious thing to do here is raise awareness of software "fairness"
in the same way.  As in "it's not FAIR that we can't run these
programs."  We can get some tearful poor people (officially oppressed
groups would be best) talking about how they can't afford to hunt down
and buy these old games, and this violates their constitutional
rights.  If we can get enough college professors to write articles
about it, it shouldn't be long before Congress passes a law, and we're
all in fat city.  Someone here must have donated to Clinton, maybe
it's time to call in the favor.
-- 
We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone.

In article <Bz9J0A.Frq@rice.edu>, jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.102041.24369@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
>>And, if the software cannot be found in stores, and the company
>>is out of business or unreachable, then I wouldn't see any
>>ethical problem with copying the software.  In fact, since 
>>it would be so reasonable to copy it, there is very little 
>>chance of any problems even if it is against the letter of the
>>law.
>
>You're right that there is only a small chance you'll get into legal
>trouble for copying out of print games.  But someone, somewhere owns
>the copyright on those games, even if the company that originally published
>them has long since gone out of business, and by copying them you're
>essentially stealing from them. 

[annoying analogy about 50 dollar bills deleted]

No, you are not stealing from them.  You are copying their software
without compensating them.  If it is impossible to compensate them,
then they are losing nothing.  The way that piracy resembles theft is
that you are taking away some of their "potential profit".  If that
potential doesn't exist (i.e. the company is out of business, and 
does let people know where they are), then they aren't losing anything. 

And besides, if someone is to be arrested for copying software that
fits in this category, doesn't the copyright holder have to press
charges?  If there are people out there that want to go through all
the trouble hunting down these copyright holders so that the pirates 
go to jail, why don't they just post info on contacting them so that
we can buy the software from them directly?

That would be a much more ethical thing to do, since that is the only
way that the copyright holders can see any money.

(why is it that people get so unreasonable about copying software,
when NO-ONE ever complains about videotaping TV shows, recording
songs off the radio, xeroxing magazine articles, etc...  I understand
it when we are talking about brand new software that is still being
produced and sold and costs a lot of money, but we're talking about
software that is not being produced, was written by a company that is
out-of-business, and is probably worth < $1.  Seriously...  if you
sent a check for $1 to the person that owns the copyright for some
old game written 10 years ago, I'm sure they would be very happy to
call your copy legit.)

In article <1992Dec14.164314.9213@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
>No, you are not stealing from them.  You are copying their software
>without compensating them.  If it is impossible to compensate them,
>then they are losing nothing.  The way that piracy resembles theft is
>that you are taking away some of their "potential profit".  If that
>potential doesn't exist (i.e. the company is out of business, and 
>does let people know where they are), then they aren't losing anything. 
>
Going back to my fifty dollar bill analogy, if they were never going
to spend the money, you haven't taken anything from them except
some worthless paper.  They should be thankful you took it off their hands.

Do you really believe that the fact that someone might not be distributing
software he owns the rights to effectively negates his ownership of
said rights?

>(why is it that people get so unreasonable about copying software,
>when NO-ONE ever complains about videotaping TV shows, recording
>songs off the radio, xeroxing magazine articles, etc...  I understand
>it when we are talking about brand new software that is still being

There are established rules governing "fair use" of books and magazines, and
I believe that established legal precedent regarding the taping of
tv shows is that it's ok, as long as the tape is for personal use
(or something like that).
-- 
Jim Wong (jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu)

In article <BzAFx4.Lwy@rice.edu>, jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes...

>Do you really believe that the fact that someone might not be distributing
>software he owns the rights to effectively negates his ownership of
>said rights?
> 
>In article <1992Dec14.164314.9213@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:    
>>(why is it that people get so unreasonable about copying software,
>>when NO-ONE ever complains about videotaping TV shows, recording
>>songs off the radio, xeroxing magazine articles, etc...  I understand
>>it when we are talking about brand new software that is still being
> 
>There are established rules governing "fair use" of books and magazines, and
>I believe that established legal precedent regarding the taping of
>tv shows is that it's ok, as long as the tape is for personal use
>(or something like that).
>-- 
>Jim Wong (jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu)

One point that I believe is relevant to this discussion.  Is it not true that
copyright is only good for seven years from the date claimed?  (If there is
someone who knows otherwise, please correct me!)  As I seem to recall, once a
copyright is granted, it is good for seven years.  (Perhaps claimed would be a
better word.)  If this is the case, and I believe it is, then as of 1-Jan-1993
most software prior to 1986 is no longer protected by copyright.

Perhaps a solution to this would be a FTP site with someone who could verify
that the programs therein were legaly available for copying/transfering/etc.  I
suspect that this would entail people getting in touch with the copyright
holders and getting permission _in writing_ to distibute.  This would have to
be a volunteer system, IE if you have a piece of software and are willing to
make the effort, you would have to contact the copyright holder in question and
obtain that permission.

As has been pointed out previously, the copyright holders in question are not
likely seeing any profit for these pieces, and might willingly let them go.
Another possibility would be distribution as shareware (if the copyright holder
wished to maintain copyright, but not bother with full blown distibution of a
program for a miniscule market.)

Ray Denison == PSRJD@ACAD2.ALASKA.EDU

In article <rdippold.724371974@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>essentially stealing from them.  If your neighbor had piles and piles
>>of fifty dollar bills that he wasn't using, and had no plans to spend, would
>>you argue that it would be correct from an ethical standpoint to steal
>>cash from him?
>

Oh, but then you get into that ethical thing.  Is copying software really
stealing per se?  The 'owner' may never know anything was taken, since his
originals (the dollar bills in your analogy) are never even touched.
And if the game is no longer for sale, he DEFINITELY didn't lose any
possible money from a sales percentage, since the 'perpetrator' wouldn't
have been able to buy the game anyway.

>Careful... most people seem to feel that it's perfectly okay to steal
>from their neighbor whether or not he/she has piles of it and whether
>or not he/she plans to use it.
>

Well, I wouldn't say MOST people, but they are out there true 'nuff.  You
might say that MOST people may not feel too bad about copying a piece of
software they NEVER would have CONSIDERED buying.  But I think MOST people
would draw the line at actual breaking and entering in order to steal
some non-data material, e.g. cash or tv's.

Just an opinion...I have mine, you have yours.
MPB