Subject: Re: Moderation Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!cyclone.swbell.net!nnrp2.sbc.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <39808809.FF9989DB@swbell.net> From: Rubywand Reply-To: rubywand@swbell.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 References: <397E44C1.D8BE365C@inetnebr.com> <397FC197.29BC0232@swbell.net> <8lp6vg$35j@library2.airnews.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 126 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:05:45 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.193.227.109 X-Complaints-To: abuse@swbell.net X-Trace: nnrp2.sbc.net 964729117 207.193.227.109 (Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:18:37 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:18:37 CDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Michael Murray writes ... > > "Rubywand" wrote in message > news:397FC197.29BC0232@swbell.net... > > > Michael Murray writes ... > > > > > .... > > > > > I'd like to note that newsgroup moderation *does* work. Look at > > > comp.lang.c.moderated if you want to see an example of it in action. > > > > Another narrow-focus group. Csa2 covers all aspects of Apple II > > computing. This includes whatever issues users wish to debate. > > The number of topics is irrelevant. It is? > And this analogy is off-base. Since the only thing resembling an analogy in the above is your attempt to equate a narrow-focus group that plays with c to the world's largest Apple II forum, I agree. Your analogy is off-base. > One could, by this logic, define csa2 as narrow-focus for including only > information about Apple II's! .... One could, by your 'logic', define a horse to be a platypus. > > It could be argued, by the third definition, that making old software freely > available would increase the number of Apple II users, as more applications > would be easily accessible. I disagree completely. .... You are, of course, free to disagree. > > And you *are* pirates. The law actually has this to say on the subject of > software piracy: > > U.S. Code : Title 17, Section 506, Paragraph A: > > (a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright > willfully either - > (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial > gain, or > (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by > electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more > copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which > have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be > punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United > States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of > reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, > shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement. > > So, as no Apple II abandonware can possibly be said to have any retail value > anymore, criminal prosecution for its distribution is impossible. > .... Naturally, since no law is being broken. (This leads one to question your initial claim-- i.e. the "you *are* pirates" nonsense.) > However, when a writing, such as software, is copyrighted, the owner > receives the *exclusive* right to reproduce, distribute, display, perform, > or license the work. > > Again, true. Everyone knows this. > > U.S. Code : Title 17, Section 106: > > Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under > this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the > following: > > (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; > (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; > (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted > work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by > rental, lease, or lending; > (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and > choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other > audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; > (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and > choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or > sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion > picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted > work publicly; and > (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted > work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. > > Please note the word "exclusive" in section 106! Thanks for taking the time to reproduce the above two sections. They help to illustrate the difference between a genuine case of breaking the law-- i.e. the "total retail value of more than $1,000" business-- and a simple grant of ownership. > Thus, while the copyright > for any Apple II software is effective, it *is* illegal to reproduce the > copyrighted work, though the act of doing so can no longer be prosecuted. .... LOL! the "act" can no longer be prosecuted because it does not violate any statutory prohibition. (It does not break any laws.) You have destroyed vogon vigilante claims about "illegality". Thanks, again, for your work! Rubywand