Re: droit de suite

On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
>
> Sooooooooo, let me see if I get your point, Colin. It's okay to
> infringe on others' rights, be they property rights or copyright
> rights or any other rights, as long as there's a strong chance that
> you won't be held legally accountable for doing so. In fact, key,
> it's okay to break any law you want as long as your chances of being
> held responsible for your actions are *neglible* or *unlikely*.
> "There may be a technical breach, but..."????? No, Colin, not a
> technical breach. It's a breach. PERIOD.
>
> It appears it doesn't matter to you that the activities in question
> may not right *ethically*... it only matters that you won't be held
> legally responsible. If that's your position as a lawyer, then I am
> truly saddened. What saddens me even more is your interpretation of
> the questions that were asked.

I am tempted to ask you, Marty, if you never infringe anyone's copyright in your life. I think nobody on this list can raise his hand and say that he never infringes anyone's copyright. But, that is ad hominem.

Just because a law says what you cannot do does not make it morally wrong and what you can do does not make it morally right. When a person feels that a law is morally wrong (according to his value system or belief), impractical, ridiculous, or hard to follow; he will have to calculate the risk of being arrested, prosecuted, or sued before he decides to disregard the law. People do that all the times. Driving at 5 or 10 more than the posted speed limit is a good example. The copyright law is no stranger to the everyday low-key infringements.

> When I read those questions posed to the group, *I* read them with the
> thought that these people wanted to make sure they were doing the right
> thing as a matter of ethics and conscience. Helen said, "how do I make
> sure I don't breach any IP issues", NOT "how do I make sure I don't get
> caught/prosecuted for breaching." The discussion about losing access to
> works due to inability to find rightsholders, etc. was one that made
> suggestions on how to make the LAW more reasonable (at least in theory),
> not how to disregard the law.

I am interested in how we can make the law more reasonable. That the U.S. Congress and judges are listening to reason is becoming a rarity.

> All I can say is, no wonder the world is the way it is today. No
> respect for anyone else or for what is *right* anymore.

Do I have to respect the copyright owners who are stingy and/or domineering? Do I have to respect the copyright owners who diminish or suppress my right to communicate knowledge in any form and medium? Do I have to respect the copyright owners who have no sense of responsibility in making their works available to the world or who want to suppress their works? Do I have to respect the copyright owners who copy the public domain works without disclosing that they are actually public domain? Do I have to respect the people who make the access to the public domain works impossible or more difficult? Do I have to respect the copyright owners who use copyright law to prompt their goals that serve no one but themselves? Why do the authors, creators, and copyright owners silently or actively desire to expand the scope of the copyright law indefinitely but oppose very vehemently against any attempt to decrease or even trim the scope of the copyright law? It is no wonder that they, and the copyright law, do not earn any high respect from me, at least.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>

Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 6,837 Received on Wed Apr 12 2000 - 17:12:20 GMT