I spose I ought to clarify. I don't think that copyright infringement is,
or ought to be, a fait accompli until the copyright has lapsed. This means
that whatever position you decide to take which is breaking the law is
still breaking the law. But if you use reasonable endeavours to show that
you can either compensate the copyright holder, should it get ugly (in
court, say) , you won't go to prison or get a nasty fine.
As regards copyright, in computers there's a hardline of IP fascists who
copyright the idea of a URL (been done, but thankfully no-one pursues it)
or the phrase 'online-shopping' (actually I don't know if this one's been
done), who should be shot..... down in flames. But a whole game or
app??? Sure, copyright it, that's what I say. And charge for it too, man,
as much as you can get away with. I'll just criticise your pricing if I
think you're being cheeky.
So no offence to Simon or anyone else, but if you can't be perfect, be
forgiveable.
With love, howard.
Yes!
Quoting Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 99% of the people who post there are rabid GNU followers, who want
> everything to be free, regardless of reality.
>
> Simon
>
> Matthew Craven wrote:
> > Why are slashdot.org monkeys?
> >
> > Quoting Fred Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> I'm not ignoring, badgering, or forcing copyright - merely agreeing
> >> with Colin.
> >>
> >> I don't know who or what slashdot monkeys are, so I don't really
> >> understand
> >>
> >> your point.
> >>
> >>> From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Reply-To: [email protected]
> >>> To: <[email protected]>
> >>> Subject: Re: Copyright etc
> >>> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:23:25 -0700
> >>>
> >>> Ultimately though, it's still not your right to force copyright.
> >>> You can go the abandonware route, but you can't just blindly ignore
> >>> it - or try to badger people into doing it.
> >>>
> >>> This is the exact problem I have with the Slashdot monkeys.
> >>>
> >>> Simon
> >>>
> >>> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>>> Well said Howard.
> >>>>
> >>>> This two month deadline is a good idea. I'm sure it will just
> >>>> illustrate my original point (before I got shouted down) that
> >>>> nobody really cares about software copyrights for a dead machine.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless they want to sell of course.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: Howard Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> Reply-To: [email protected]
> >>>>> To: [email protected]
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Copyright etc
> >>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:12:26 +0100
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 17:03 15/08/02, you wrote:
> >>>>>>> I've been a bit quiet lately but I thought I'd just chirp in - I
> >>>>>>> support your plan Colin, copyrighted material retains copyright,
> >>>>>>> but if no-one
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>> ^^^^
> >>>>>>> be bothered to enforce it, even if you seek them out for two
> >>>>>>> months,
> >>>>>> ignore
> >>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Erm... the plan about the Copyright software was Gavin Smith's
> >>>>>> post ... not mine
> >>>>>> !
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Colin
> >>>>>> ====
> >>>>>> Quazar : Hardware, Software, Spares and Repairs for the Sam
> >>>>>> Website: http://www.quazar.clara.net/sam/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gavin and the SC newsletter hasn't been eaten by giant
> >>>>> anteaters??????!!! Don't believe you!
