You're talking to the MOST ignorant of the regulars in this group (well,
"regular" as in a couple of years, not like the *real* regulars here.) Been
proven over and over and over and over ad nauseum. If I had any thought for
his welfare, I'd take up a collection to pay for a tutor in Logic. It would
have to be a very substantial sum, I should think. Might even turn out to be
a lifetime's vocation, and I already have too many of those.

Hope you're aren't expecting anything resembling a real debate. And I
*really* hope you don't have some fantasy about teaching him anything,
whether factual or procedural. If you did.... Well, let's just say I'd have
to start being concerned for your own sanity.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"James Hahn" wrote in message
...
Please see my comments in-line.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
James Hahn wrote:

Why does a work that is no longer and WILL NEVER AGAIN be
manufactured or sold deserve copyright protection?

How is the holder of such a work harmed by the non-profit,
non-commercial replication and use of that work?

And don't blow off those questions by telling me to do
research.

Firstly, why don't you do the research

Why don't you provide a counter-argument.


There is no counter-argument to anyone who simply says "I think it ought
to be different than it is because that seems more sensible to me" which
is the sum total of the arguments you have put forward. You have not
addressed any of the points that have been part of the whole process of
the establishment of copyright protection across a wide range of
jurisdictions over many years. Provide one reason why you believe the
original creator of a copyrightable work is not entitled to protect that
work from copying, and maybe people will attempt to provide the evidence
to disprove it. Don't just say "because I can't see any reason" - you
can't see any reason because you haven't done the research. Unless you are
prepared to say just how you can dismiss all the argument and evidence
about the value to the community that derives from the ability to protect
creative works, then there is no argument to counter. But you can't do
that because you do not understand copyright, because you have not done
the research.

Why should a work that *will never again* be manufactured or sold need
copyright protection?

Why should such a work deserve copyright protection?

If you know the reason, or you have a logical argument, then state it.

If *you* want to perform research to come up with a counter argument,
then do so. The onus is on you (or MEB) to provide a counter argument.


That's not how it works. You are suggesting that a broad set of laws can
either be ignored or should be changed because you don't think they are
appropriate for today's information-based environment. The onus is on you
to show why things are now so different from what they were when the
copyright laws were debated and refined in the legislative chambers and
courts throughout the world that these changes should now be made. When
the process by which the current laws were created is examined (which you
seem determined not to do) you will realize that there is a vast amount of
material addressing each specific point of copyright law, and the debate
in respect of when and how copyright should terminate is as extensive as
any other part. When you have determnined exactly which parts of those
arguments are no longer valid, then present them here and shoot them down.

When you find a single jurisdiction that ties the
enforcement of copyright to some potential or
actual ability of the rights-holder to profit
from the creative work,

I never said that copyright benefits should take into account the
potential for gain, revenue or profit.


How about "How is Microsoft harmed, financially or otherwise, today, by
those that obtain and use Windows-98 by any means? What exactly is
copyright law protecting, or conveying what benefit to Microsoft, with
regard to the casual circulation and use of Windows 98?"

That sure sounds to me like you are saying that the availability of
copyright protection should take into account the potential of the
rights-holder to profit from the product. And your following comments
make the same claim.

A more rational copyright law could be structured as:

a) a work that was never made public could / would be protected.


Copyright applies to a published creative work. If it isn't made public it
can't be copied and doesn't need copyright protection.

b) a work that has been made public, and continues to be, could / would
be protected.

c) A work that was once made public, but has ceased to be so for some
period of time, would lose some of it's protection.


If it's been made public it can't cease to be public. Once it's published
it's published forever.

By "made public", I mean any form of presentation to the public, be it
as an exhibition, broadcast, reproduction for sale or lease, etc.

In a way that is similar to the protection given by a patent. A patent
is a form of intellectual property that is disclosed in return for a
period of protection to allow the patent holder to profit from the
patent. It does not require the holder to do anything, and indeed the
holder may do nothing to seek financial gain from the patent.


Why do we need something similar to a patent? Doesn't patent law look
after that situation? Copyright applies to creative works. Patent law
applies to inventions.

A copyrighted work is also a form of intellectual property. One can
argue that software should not be copyrighted but instead should be
patented because sofware performs work or exhibits functionality, while
most or all conventional forms of copyrighted materials (music, movies,
books, art, etc) do not perform work or have any inherent functionality
of any sort.


Whether software should be patentable or copyrightable is a completely
different argument that also has a large body of discussion (and which no
doubt you also have not consulted) and is not going to be debated here.

So instead of enacting a time-limited protection for software that
starts the moment it is made available to the public, a comprimise would
be that software would have full copyright protection while it is
publically available, but would lose some aspects of it's protection
perhaps several years after it is has been withdrawn from public
availability.

Once it's public it's public forever. What you really mean by "withdrawn
from public availability" is "no longer a commercial product". You have
not provided any argument to justify a reduction in the rights of the
copyright holder just because a copyrighted item ceases to be a commercial
product. If it is deserving of copyright protection when it first went on
sale then it is deserving of copyright protection for as long as the
rights-holder chooses. That's the determination of the settled body of
copyright law and you have not advanced any argument that suggests it
ought to be otherwise.