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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 -- _________ |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |