[NTLK] Copyright Test [was h*cks, kr*ks, SN]

[Tony Kan]

Hang on let's not give up too easily.

I know this thread seems long, compared to anything that has gone on before but
it is about a matter that is important and at first glance complex.  However the
implications and potential benefits to all Newton users mean that it is worth a
little perseverence.

The folks at the Internet Archive, in successfully lobbying the Copyright
legislators, have done us a service.  They wanted the law to allow them to
circumvent copyright protection systems to preserve obsolete software and permit
noninfringing usage of the salvaged software, in their case, from abandoned
websites.  The authorities let them (and anybody, including us) have it.

We have an archive, the UNNA.

Our links to it are tenuous so that's why I suggested we organize a more formal
membership to govern the activities of those who want to get anything stored on
it.

Secondly the fair use doctrine gives people the right to use digital works under
certain circumstances.  Provided that we operate within the bounds of "fair
use", what is the problem?

It seems to me that we could over and above what the law requires and implement
a protocol similar to that already suggested earlier:

1. To endeavour to ensure that a piece of software is indeed "obsolete" and
abandonware; and

2. To ensure that a developer who is concerned about it can either have their
software removed from a register or they can collect their registration fees
from those who have lodged their usage with the "registrar".

Thus the desire to preserve obsolete software is met whilst at the same time
preserving the economic benefit of the developer is also met.

But what if the developer just didn't want anyone from deriving any benefit from
his/her creation at all?  The Copyright legislators have already ruled in
respect of a developer's right to withdraw the use of the software from society
altogether by allowing Archives to circumvent copyright protection.

Why talk ourselves out of something good by assuming its illegal when the law
permits it?  Don't let our misperceptions of copyright law rob society.  The law
is not egregious.  It just needs people to put the work in to be familiar with
it (rather than speculate as to what it is or should be) and to work within its
framework.

Now its possible that I have misread the legislation, so I'm open to a
discussion on it.

HTH

Tony
Christchurch
New Zealand

[snip]
Personally I am deeply disappointed by this. For me it's no different
than archaeology. I can not see the injustice.

However if asking members to take the discussion about one single
package, to a point of an actual decision  instead of the rhetoric,  is
really that unpalatable then fair enough.

In my mind there is no law against discussion and I do not personally
fear the consequences of it.

But I do acknowledge that I may be proposing a minority view so...
[snip]