[NTLK] Copyright issues...

[Frank Gruendel]

> That would be a pretty arrogant action if 1. you stopped updating it, 2. 
> no longer responded to email, or didn't publish a valid email address, 
> etc. The problem is with software for which there is absolutely NO WAY 
> to do the "right thing". If an author/publisher can't be located, and 
> later does what you suggest, then I put that down to pure unadulterated 
> greed. If they still want to be financially compensated, then it is 
> mandatory that they maintain a valid way to do so.

I know I should stay out of this, and I promise this will be my only post regarding this topic. Like
others on this list, I'm writing software for a living.

All my life I've been tickled pink listening to people's inventive and fanciful justifcations of
intellectual property theft. I usually end these discussions before they get beyond control by my
standard dictum: "I couldn't care less what you do, but at least have the courage to admit that you
are doing something illegal".

My favourites are

"I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so the vendor does not really have any loss"

and

"The vendor might actually benefit from this because if I need a certain type of software at work,
of course my employer will buy the one that I am familiar with".

Myself, I've always wanted a certain Corvette model. This model hasn't been sold for a couple of
decades. There's no chance of buying a new one, no matter how hard I try. Even if I were able afford
it, which I am not.

But if I happen to come across such a car somewhere, this doesn't give me the right to just take it
home and use it. Even if I've done my utmost for years to get in touch with the owner. Even if it is
obviously abandoned. Even if it has been decaying on its driveway for the last two decades. Even if
I write a check and put it in the postbox next to the driveway. If I take it, it's theft. Period.

The problem with software seems to be that if people cannot see or touch something, they tend to
believe it isn't "real theft" if they use it without obtaining it legally. This belief is found
whereever the item in question only consists of bits and bytes, regardless of whether it is computer
programs, music, videos, computer operating systems or whatever.

The law concerning intellectual property is pretty clear and not too difficult to understand.
Authors have the right to sell their products. But buyers do not have the right to buy them if for
whatever reason the authors choose to no longer sell them. The fact that they can no longer buy them
does not entitle buyers to steal them. This is status quo until either the intellectual property
protection period expires or until the authors change their decision.

Calling such a decision "arrogant" is, in my very humble and admittedly utterly unimportant opinion,
just a weeny bit inappropriate.

Frank

-- Newton software and hardware at http://www.pda-soft.de