On 9/30/05, Mike Bradley <mbradley[_at_]techpubs.com> wrote:
>
> I would say, rather, it's time for technology and the public to
> realize that they have to act within the constraints of the law, even
> if they have the ability to do otherwise. Just because you have the
> ability to hack into the Bank of America's computer doesn't mean you
> should do it.
The analogy is fallacious. (It is called "The extended analogy" according to http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html.) The former is legal while the latter is illegal.
> The rights holders of these books may have their own plans for
> marketing the books, such as agreements with other online outlets.
> They may not want them visible at all, such as the heirs of an avowed
> racist whose published books the heirs now view as embarassing. The
> author of a book with lots of four-letter words may not want the book
> indexed because the index produces a complete list of every word,
> giving book-burning fundamentalists an easy target for yet another
> burning.
Copyright does not give the authors and their heirs any right to prevent people from making the public aware of their works. They can't use copyright as a tool for censorship.
> The point is, the rights holders and their licensees have the
> *exclusive* right to determine a book's copying. Observance of that
> fact has to be fundamental to any plan to copy books, but authors
> don't see that in Google's plans.
But, the authors don't have the absolute exclusive right on copying. The U.S. copyright law contains exceptions to the exclusive right.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<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: 4,838
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Mon Oct 03 2005 - 22:50:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT