[NTLK] h*cks, kr*ks, SN

[reilly001os at aol.com]

Ken,
Your points were not lost on me, I agree that we haven't found a sufficient legal solution yet for the abandonware problem.  I apologise for the tone of my last post but it bothers me if its even implied that we're talking about this for some sort of criminal gain. I don't think we'll really find a good clear cut legal solution short of petitioning the library of congress for the next round of dmca exemptions or trying to get copyright law updated to handle the speed of software abandonment/death/disappearance. I just hope all the abandoned newt software is still floating around somewhere by the time law catches up with technology. 

*I had a funny thought this morning though, maybe we're all so invested in this topic just because we're avoiding talking about the itablet this announcement round ;-)

Joe Reilly 
------Original Message------
From: Ken Whitcomb
To: NewtonTalk
To: Mr. Joseph Reilly
Subject: Re: [NTLK] h*cks, kr*ks, SN
Sent: Jan 21, 2010 11:41

Hi Joe,
You make a good point, which brings me back to what started this  
thread. IIRC, the question was about publishing serial codes or hacks  
for use by Newton owners for software that has been labeled  
abandonware. It was never my desire to do more than point out that  
doing so is not legitimized or legalized by our inability to purchase  
licenses, or even contact the copyright holder. For the purpose of  
using the software on our Newton MPs (as opposed to some of the other  
uses mentioned earlier in this thread), absent obtaining a license in  
whatever legal means possible, to do what was proposed is illegal (or  
substitute which ever language one is comfortable with - wrong,  
immoral, unethical, etc.)
People on this list are honest, have tremendous integrity from what  
I've seen, and are also very generous with their time and resources. I  
can't say enough good about this list's membership.

To repeat my main point, being unable to obtain a license legally does  
not make it ok (better word?) to violate the copyright holder's  
rights. Because I am able to do something, does not mean it is  
acceptable to do that thing.

I don't know why I did such a poor job of communicating that notion  
before, but that's what I'm really trying to say.

best,
ken

On Jan 21, 2010, at 10:54 AM, reilly001os at aol.com wrote:

> Ken,
> Your list seems to be a little off base for this discussion. As I  
> stated I DO NOT use some software because I can't afford it  
> currently and I'm sure I'm not the only person of limited means on  
> this list that REFUSES to pirate commercial software. Besides if a  
> software is still commercially available or supported that voids it  
> from our discussion about SAVING AND USING SOFTWARE ABANDONED BY ITS  
> AUTHOR. Thought I'd highlight the point of this discussion again  
> since you seem be continually skewing it. We're not talking about  
> this simply to mock the law, because we're poor, or because we are  
> scallywag software pirates bent on economic and personal gain  
> through illicit means which is what you keep implying. While points  
> about money and the alleged errors of laws in regard to old/ 
> abandoned software have come up you seem to be mistaking them for  
> the topic instead of what they are: simple by-products of this type  
> of conversation. People on this list are honest and honorable from  
> what I can see which is exactly why we're having this discussion and  
> NOT simply swapping software (in a possibly illegal fashion).
>
> Joe Reilly



Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile