A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 4th 08, 05:59 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
James Hahn
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 8
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition

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.

  #52  
Old September 4th 08, 06:49 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Gary S. Terhune[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,158
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition

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.



  #53  
Old September 4th 08, 06:56 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,626
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition

We did this before, read your BS from the last time:

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re.../copyright.htm

There is no argument you can raise that would allow the activity in which
you engage and solicit others to do.

--
MEB
a Peoples' counsel
--
_________



"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
| MEB wrote:
|
| The determinative action is the right to *distribute* or not,,,
| Microsoft holds that right, you and others hold no such authority...
|
| So those that are selling Windows on E-bay are violating copyright law -
| are they not?
|
| Aren't they "distributing" it - by way of sale?
|
| The whole ridiculous argument you raise is that because Microsoft
| has purportedly chosen NOT to distribute 98 then you SHOULD have
| that right...
|
| What is really the issue is the USE of Windows 98 in a way that violates
| the EULA.
|
| I might burn a copy of Windows-98 on a stack of CD's and put them in a
| closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of revenue for
| Microsoft?
|
| Does that violate the EULA? How would I know what the EULA is unless I
| stick one of those CD's into a computer and boot it? What if I never
| do?
|
| I might hand out each CD to a friend, and they all might throw it away
| or put it in their closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of
| revenue for Microsoft?
|
| The real issue is not really that CD's are copied or torrents are
| transfering copies of the CD between people.
|
| What matters is this:
|
| Are there any installations of Windows-98 where the license to use the
| software can't be traced back to a lawful sale of said licence by
| Microsoft?
|
| For example - if Microsoft sold a total of 100 million Windows-98
| licenses world-wide, but if at any given point in time there were 100
| million and 1 functioning installations of Windows-98, then it could be
| said that Microsoft has been harmed and has suffered some financial loss
| due to the 1 install that has no corresponding legal license.
|
| There may now (in 2008) be 10 million functioning installations of
| Windows 98, which means there are 90 million licenses that have become
| lost, abandoned or discarded. Microsoft can't claim harm, even today,
| unless the number of systems running Windows-98 rises to above 100
| million, or the number of copies of windows-98 being made available for
| sale (on e-bay, etc) exceeds 90 million.
|
| yeah sure, so if the car dealer refuses to sell that *classic*
| car, you should be able to steal it and sell or give it away...
|
| Microsoft has already sold the rights (or licences) for millions of
| individual installations of Windows-98.
|
| It's like there are millions of that "classic car". Some have owners
| who are driving them. Most are sitting around, abandond, on the street,
| in the wilderness, in the garbage dump - and you can just go and take
| them. Once a car company has sold a car to the first purchaser (which
| is usually the dealer) they have no interest in the car after that -
| like the ownership history, who buys it from who, who steals it from
| whom, etc.
|
| Since NO ONE other than Microsoft has ever actually OWNED the
| software, you have absolutely no authority.
|
| But someone DID purchase a license to USE the software, and that license
| is NOT time-limited and there is NO prohibition against transfer.
|
| The replication or distribution of a win-98 CD is irrelevant - I might
| use it as a coaster or frisbee.
|
| It's the installation and use of win-98 with or without a bona fide
| license (product key) - that IS the issue.
|
| Because in the end, as you say, Microsoft is selling the RIGHT to USE
| the the software. And once they sell _a_ right, that right continues to
| exist regardless who possesses it or how they came to possess it.


  #54  
Old September 4th 08, 07:47 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Dan
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,089
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition

MEB, how come Microsoft does not sell the 9x source code to the U.S. or
Canadian or another friendly government if Microsoft is not willing to
program for the 9x source code anymore because it is too expensive for
Microsoft to program for 2 source codes from what I have read about the
situation. (Note: I feel and I think many here would agree with me that
Windows 9x consumer source code was best in Windows 98 Second Edition because
Windows ME removed easy access to MS-DOS and broke easy compatibility with
older programs --- heck --- Microsoft has a white page document that weighs
in over 100 pages on securing Windows 98 and Windows NT networks so it
certainly sounds like Microsoft cares a lot about their older IP that is
still in use by a few companies, some individuals and within some governments)

"MEB" wrote:

We did this before, read your BS from the last time:

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re.../copyright.htm

There is no argument you can raise that would allow the activity in which
you engage and solicit others to do.

--
MEB
a Peoples' counsel
--
_________



"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
| MEB wrote:
|
| The determinative action is the right to *distribute* or not,,,
| Microsoft holds that right, you and others hold no such authority...
|
| So those that are selling Windows on E-bay are violating copyright law -
| are they not?
|
| Aren't they "distributing" it - by way of sale?
|
| The whole ridiculous argument you raise is that because Microsoft
| has purportedly chosen NOT to distribute 98 then you SHOULD have
| that right...
|
| What is really the issue is the USE of Windows 98 in a way that violates
| the EULA.
|
| I might burn a copy of Windows-98 on a stack of CD's and put them in a
| closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of revenue for
| Microsoft?
|
| Does that violate the EULA? How would I know what the EULA is unless I
| stick one of those CD's into a computer and boot it? What if I never
| do?
|
| I might hand out each CD to a friend, and they all might throw it away
| or put it in their closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of
| revenue for Microsoft?
|
| The real issue is not really that CD's are copied or torrents are
| transfering copies of the CD between people.
|
| What matters is this:
|
| Are there any installations of Windows-98 where the license to use the
| software can't be traced back to a lawful sale of said licence by
| Microsoft?
|
| For example - if Microsoft sold a total of 100 million Windows-98
| licenses world-wide, but if at any given point in time there were 100
| million and 1 functioning installations of Windows-98, then it could be
| said that Microsoft has been harmed and has suffered some financial loss
| due to the 1 install that has no corresponding legal license.
|
| There may now (in 2008) be 10 million functioning installations of
| Windows 98, which means there are 90 million licenses that have become
| lost, abandoned or discarded. Microsoft can't claim harm, even today,
| unless the number of systems running Windows-98 rises to above 100
| million, or the number of copies of windows-98 being made available for
| sale (on e-bay, etc) exceeds 90 million.
|
| yeah sure, so if the car dealer refuses to sell that *classic*
| car, you should be able to steal it and sell or give it away...
|
| Microsoft has already sold the rights (or licences) for millions of
| individual installations of Windows-98.
|
| It's like there are millions of that "classic car". Some have owners
| who are driving them. Most are sitting around, abandond, on the street,
| in the wilderness, in the garbage dump - and you can just go and take
| them. Once a car company has sold a car to the first purchaser (which
| is usually the dealer) they have no interest in the car after that -
| like the ownership history, who buys it from who, who steals it from
| whom, etc.
|
| Since NO ONE other than Microsoft has ever actually OWNED the
| software, you have absolutely no authority.
|
| But someone DID purchase a license to USE the software, and that license
| is NOT time-limited and there is NO prohibition against transfer.
|
| The replication or distribution of a win-98 CD is irrelevant - I might
| use it as a coaster or frisbee.
|
| It's the installation and use of win-98 with or without a bona fide
| license (product key) - that IS the issue.
|
| Because in the end, as you say, Microsoft is selling the RIGHT to USE
| the the software. And once they sell _a_ right, that right continues to
| exist regardless who possesses it or how they came to possess it.



  #55  
Old September 4th 08, 08:18 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,626
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition



"Dan" wrote in message
...
| MEB, how come Microsoft does not sell the 9x source code to the U.S. or
| Canadian or another friendly government if Microsoft is not willing to
| program for the 9x source code anymore because it is too expensive for
| Microsoft to program for 2 source codes from what I have read about the
| situation. (Note: I feel and I think many here would agree with me that
| Windows 9x consumer source code was best in Windows 98 Second Edition
because
| Windows ME removed easy access to MS-DOS and broke easy compatibility with
| older programs --- heck --- Microsoft has a white page document that
weighs
| in over 100 pages on securing Windows 98 and Windows NT networks so it
| certainly sounds like Microsoft cares a lot about their older IP that is
| still in use by a few companies, some individuals and within some
governments)

Microsoft has or had many white papers and other related to the networking
aspects I still have many hundreds locally;, and is aware of the existance
of the millions of users. And in reality, its not all that expensive to
maintain it.. it just no longer brings in the revenue desired.

As for why Microsoft retains its authority; you would have to take that up
with Microsoft.

--
MEB

--
_________



  #56  
Old September 4th 08, 08:20 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Sunny
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 502
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition


"MEB" meb@not wrote in message
...
We did this before, read your BS from the last time:

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re.../copyright.htm

There is no argument you can raise that would allow the activity in
which
you engage and solicit others to do.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...

snip

The ironic part about the whole thing is that Western piracy is peanuts,
compared to Asian practises.

On frequent trips, to Singapore/Malaysia/Indonesia I have noticed
thousands of OEM Win98-ME and XP CDs being openly sold off the shelf, in
shops. (Some shop keepers didn't know "retail" copies even existed)
Also, at a Microsoft promotion in Singapore, even the stall holders were
openly admitting pirating Microsoft stuff.
The largest thefts are from corporate/business systems.


  #57  
Old September 4th 08, 08:31 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
James Hahn
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 8
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition

"Gary S. Terhune" none wrote in message
...
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


Well, I did jump in by noting that it was the silliest argument I had seen
in a long time. I think I may have made the same mistake in this NG before,
but as a publisher of creative works it is a topic that I feel some concern
about.

  #58  
Old September 4th 08, 08:33 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
~BD~[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 29
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition


"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
~BD~ wrote:

You are 'standing into danger' my friend.

That's an odd phrase - "standing into danger".


Not odd at all .......... especially if one has a nautical bent!


Well, then, in that case - wouldn't "sailing into danger" be better?

__________________________________________________

Consider this, wise Guy:-

The industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the upsurge in
international commerce which followed resulted in the adoption of a number of international treaties
related to shipping, including safety. The subjects covered included tonnage measurement, the
prevention of collisions, signalling and others.

By the end of the nineteenth century suggestions had even been made for the creation of a permanent
international maritime body to deal with these and future measures. The plan was not put into
effect, but international co-operation continued in the twentieth century, with the adoption of
still more internationally-developed treaties.

By the time IMO came into existence in 1958, several important international conventions had already
been developed, including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1948, the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil of 1954 and treaties
dealing with load lines and the prevention of collisions at sea.

IMO was made responsible for ensuring that the majority of these conventions were kept up to date.
It was also given the task of developing new conventions as and when the need arose.

The creation of IMO coincided with a period of tremendous change in world shipping and the
Organization was kept busy from the start developing new conventions and ensuring that existing
instruments kept pace with changes in shipping technology. It is now responsible for nearly 50
international conventions and agreements and has adopted numerous protocols and amendments.


Extract from 'Conventions' he- http://www.imo.org/

HTH

Dave


  #59  
Old September 4th 08, 02:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Angel
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 493
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition

Note Below
"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
: Angel wrote:
: Buffalo,
:
: Maybe (98 Guy) knows more about computers, I am learning more about them
: every day. He seems to know NOTHING about Scruples, Morals and
Integrity,
: or
: he just doesn't care about what the difference is between right and
wrong.
: This subject has nothing to do with computer knowledge. This concerns
the
: difference between right and wrong, scruples, morality and integrity,
: nothing else.
: Angel
:
: "scruples, morality and integrity"??? Wrong era and wrong generation
for
: that! You old fogie, you!!!!
:
All I have to say about your comment is: Do, Write and Say unto others AS
you would want them to Do, Write and Say to you. It would be a better world
if everyone believed and did this. Scruples, morality and integrity has
NEVER been connected with era or generation. It has never gone out of style.
Of course, there is nothing that would change your mind if you had your mind
set on "wrong era and wrong generation" no matter what. Anyway, you do not
know what generation I am from, this may give you a hint: I go to University
classes. Right now, I am taking Philosophy classes. Maybe you should be
going to those classes.

Angel

: "Buffalo" wrote in message
: . ..
:
:
: Bill in Co. wrote:
: Buffalo wrote:
: Angel wrote:
: Thanks Dan,
:
: You have just asked "98 Guy" the same question I was going to ask.
: He checked ONLY 1/3rd of the downloaded Pirated Win98SE? Maybe he
: is in for a great surprise!! Of course, he is a "know it all" and
: no matter what. In his own opinion, he is never wrong no matter
: what! He is just a Troll! looking for someone to pick on.
:
: Angel
:
: And who might you just be??
:
: She is Angel.
:
: Well, Duh? I think he (98 Guy) knows a hell of a lot more about
: Win98
: and computers than Angel.
:
:


  #60  
Old September 4th 08, 03:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition

James Hahn wrote:

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"


I'm asking why should a work that is no longer and will never be made
available again require copyright protection?

Was copyright law written with that situation in mind?

You have not addressed any of the points that have been part
of the whole process of the establishment of copyright protection


I'm not saying that the concept of copyright protection has no logical
or rational basis.

I'm saying that society does not benefit from the enforcement of
perpetual copyright protection of a work that is no longer and will
never again be made available to the public by the owner of the work.

The concept of patent protection is more equitable for society in that
it gives the owner exclusive use of the patent for a fixed (but
relatively short) time frame. Through copyright law and the courts,
society conveys protection to the owner of copyrighted works, the
corollary being that society _should_ have access to the works if they
become abandoned by the owner, or at least should not be prosecuted for
simply replicating and distributing the works.

Provide one reason why you believe the original creator of a
copyrightable work is not entitled to protect that work from
copying,


In the case of software, simple copying does not and should not
constitute a violation of copyright law, because unlike books or music
or movies or art, software can not be "experienced" unless it is used.
If I copy a book, the copy *is* the experience. Everyone here is hung
up on the copying aspect of the software distribution mechanism, which
logically can't be equated to the copying of other forms of creative
work.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how can I get a copy of Windows 98 SE? VictorRichards General 1 November 10th 06 03:32 PM
Last Call: Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Edition Support roman modic General 84 July 25th 06 02:25 AM
Windows Copy command Travis General 1 May 24th 05 11:01 AM
Lost / forgot password(windows 98 2nd edition)(windows xp) [email protected] Monitors & Displays 4 September 6th 04 08:01 PM
Copy files, preserving timestamp : exact copy! henryn General 2 July 25th 04 05:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.