Subject: Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!ord-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.uiowa.edu!news1.icaen!garp3.icaen.uiowa.edu!apple2pd From: apple2pd@garp3.icaen.uiowa.edu (ground.ecn AppleII Librarian) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Date: 7 Aug 2000 16:01:27 GMT Organization: Iowa Computer Aided Engineering Network, University of Iowa Lines: 76 Message-ID: <8mmmgn$75t$1@server05.icaen.uiowa.edu> References: <398acc8e$1@hal.grnco.net> <398E3580.FCF019FE@inetnebr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ground.ecn.uiowa.edu In article <398E3580.FCF019FE@inetnebr.com>, Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote: > >The problem is that the law is reasonable and appropriate, but it keeps you and >others from what you want, but don't have the right to have. So you whine about >the law, and create false analogies, divert from the main point and can't even >understand clearly written sentences that are contrary to what you wish to hear. Poor defensive reasoning, but legally correct. For far too many years and even almost a century after the creation of the USA, slavery, by law, was reasonable and appropriate. It took a gutsy President and his supporters, plus the Civil War, to convince others that slavery was WRONG. Some still remain unconvinced. For the next century, law supported the separate but equal doctrine. Again it took years of hard work by men such as Martin Luther King and many others and a forward looking Supreme Court to change the law and make integration the correct viewpoint. Still, many remain unconvinced. Today's arguments over copyrights seem trivial in comparison with the moral problems of slavery and segregation. But they are NOT trivial to many - neither to publishers, authors, artist/performers, etc. nor to the general public who wishes access to information. Not free as in $$$, but free as in unrestricted and universal to all, for a fee. Debate and compromise are needed to create a usable, workable, system of copyrights. When copyrights are inappropriate for current customs and society, then they become useless to society no matter how legal and lawful they remain. Current laws regarding copyright for software are becoming dinosaurs. Authors life + 70 years seems reasonable for many creative works, but for computer software that has a commercial life of often less than 2 years in todays rapidly changing OS'es; the time has indeed come to question the current copyright laws. Thus, debate is necessary for both sides to arrive at a workable compromise. Reasonable to me is: Unconditional copyright for software, etc. for 5 years, renewable for 2 year increments by registration (mail-in postcard form?) up to the maximum copyright term (Life + 70 years). Details may vary, but the point should be to make copyright a active process in which the creator/holder has to indicate interest in the works, or they pass into public domain. Authors and their heirs could still protect their interests, publishers and artists could protect their works, etc. for as long a period as they wish. Once interest is lost, the public has access. This would work as well as, and hopefully better than, current copyright laws, as the copyright holders remain identifiable and protected, and the status of 'lost' works is established, ie. public domain. Therefore, to get the laws changed, people must debate and let their congressional representative know how they feel and what is workable. Some diehards will always think todays laws are best, but at least a larger segment could respect a more dynamic version of copyright that was in synch with technology. The world is not static. Society is dynamic and the laws must be dynamic, or the laws will become a burden on society. As we are beginning to feel, anarchy (piracy) is the result. Current copyright law may be the best, but don't argue it is because it is 'reasonable and appropriate'. Everyone has a different view of 'reasonable and appropriate'. Let's work for a copyright law that protects interests of both authors and the public, so that it is respected by all. Some people need to be reminded debate is differing viewpoints offered in a respectful exchange of ideas. NO vulgarity, NO demeaning name calling, NO spiteful comments. Comments from homeless, stray pets also are not helpful! ;-) Please ignore/do not respond to any post which lack civil character. Then maybe we can make progress. IMHO, --Steve -- --Steve (apple2pd@ground.ecn.uiowa.edu)