> And I would like to ask if every computer you use is completely clean of
> any license or copyright violation.
[Fawcett, Mitch] it is
> Does anyone play a radio at work - BMI or ASCAP might like to know.
[Fawcett, Mitch] I play CD's which I have paid for.
>
> And have you actually written for permission before photocopying a book?
[Fawcett, Mitch] If I photocopy something it is for my own use. I
don't put it on the internet and I don't pass it around. Maybe technically
that's illegal. But it is such hairsplitting.
> And do you properly handle the Palm Computing Platform (tm) trademark and
> trade dress on all your pages?
[Fawcett, Mitch] I only have one simple page and I don't believe it
is in any kind of violation. If it is, let me know and I'l lchange it.
> Maybe you should be made an example. I think if someone looks long
> enough, they can find something you are doing that is against the law,
> and find someone else just as offended at what you are doing who would
> prosecute.
[Fawcett, Mitch] I'm aghast at your response to my e-mail to this
list. If I can't make a simple suggestion such as writing a letter to your
congressional representative without getting this kind of flak, I'll think
twice before sending another e-mail to this list.
> > Dear Representative Castle:
> >
> > I am a computer software developer in Delaware and I make my living
> creating
> > copyrighted works involving computers and computer software. It is very
> > discouraging to see my work being distributed freely over the internet
> by
> > individuals who choose to ignore the laws regarding copyrighted
> material.
> > These individuals often justify their actions by claiming that because
> they
> > do not charge for the software, they are not subject to the restrictions
> of
> > the copyright laws of the United States.
>
> Out of curiousity, did anything at the site make that claim? I have never
> heard it before.
[Fawcett, Mitch] Someone submitted a post to this list stating this
as a defense a few weeks ago.
> > There are now internet web sites where hundreds, if not thousands, of
> > copyrighted programs are available for free for the price of a few
> seconds
> > of download time. We in the software developer community do what we can
> to
> > force these sites to close, but it is often the case that the site
> reopens
> > at another address within a few days.
> >
> > I hope there is something that you or I can do that will make it clear
> to
> > these individuals that it is illegal to copy and distribute copyrighted
> > material even if they do not charge for it. Perhaps by making a harsh
> > example through the criminal justice system, a message could be sent to
> > others who are contemplating these illegal and unethical activities.
>
> See InfoWorld's current articles on UCTIA for another example of a
> similar bad law in the making designed to "protect" software writers
> by enforcing shrinkwrap licenses you can't read until you have opened
> the box. Remember how long it took to get rid of the 55 MPH speed
> limit?
>
> One of the big-name country singers wanted to close down every Used-CD
> store because he thought *that* was a copyright violation and he was
> losing so much money because someone could buy the CD used. Maybe every
> CD player should go DIVX?
>
> You don't suggest anything specific for your Congressman to do, and
> generally when they get letters like this they will do something - and
> that thing is stupid, intrusive, and ineffective.
>
> You are free to file a civil lawsuit against the site to the full extent
> of law. Go for it. If you want to spend thousands of dollars in a
> lawsuit and hire detectives, there may be enough evidence for the FBI to
> act. There *are* existing laws. But they aren't enforced. And they
> won't be for small amounts of money no matter what the law says the
> penalty is.
>
> Lest I leave without proposing a solution, something similar happened in
> late 1800's england - shopowners were burgled, but it was an expensive
> process to bring any thief to prosecution, so no individual shop owner
> did. But the shopowners formed a coalition that paid into an insurance
> like fund so if anyone was robbed, there would be funds to prosecute - and
> they would advertise this fact so the thieves knew who to stay away from.
>
> See the text under the heading "Deterrence as a Private Good".
[Fawcett, Mitch] Sorry I offended you so much!
>
> http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html
>
> (While you are there, look for his account of Steve Jackson Games - the SS
> raided them, almost put them out of business, and even violated laws
> regarding the privacy of email, but found nothing - do we really need
> more of this?)
>
> Instead of writing your legislator, perhaps PilotGear could do something
> similar to holding a $0.05 payment per registration into a
> reward/prosecution pot, and add an informant link which might offer
> rewards for information leading to the prosecution of warez sites.
>
> If not pilotgear, then kagi or another shareware site - such that if they
> are the exclusive payment system, you get coverage if any shareware
> program registered there is found on a warez site, they promise to use
> the funds to immediately shut down the site and prosecute.
>
>
