MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Electronic versions of out-of-print paperbacks

Lady Fitzgerald · 10-13-2010, 06:36 AM

I'll be the first to admit current copyright law has corrupted the original intent of our Constitution and this has been fueled by the greed of current copyright owners. For a better understanding of how this has happened, this article states it very well.

However, choosing not to obey a law or to deliberately disobey it because one does not agree with it or feel it is inconvenient to obey it is essentially anarchy. As I mentioned before, civil disobediance is a tool, albeit a bit questionable, that can be used to force a law to be tested by by the judicial system to determine it's constitutionality or fairness. Another, less risky tool (since it doesn't risk possible conviction) is challenging a law in the courts via lawsuit.

While there are copyright owners who have abandoned the works they have the rights to and current copyright law does strangle access to those rights contrary to the original intent of the US constitution, that does not excuse deliberate violation of the laws, no matter how wrong they are, just to satisfy one's own desires.

GA Russell did initially suggest trying to track down the copyright owners but then he turned around and suggested ignoring current law (which, no matter how wrong one may feel it is, is still the law) by going ahead and publishing "orphaned" works and wait to see if the owners of the rights to those works protest or not. Then, when challenged on that advice, started rationalizing his advice. That was what I found so amusing because they were the same, old, tired arguments I have seen so many times, especially since Russell claims to be a lawyer and didn't bother to explain the risks of following his advice (I'm still chortling over the "cost of doing business" line; I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that concept abused).

I'm not even going to argue with Xanth's post (mostly because I doubt it will do any good). Again, it's the same, old, tired rationalization I have seen so often to justify lawbreaking. Current copyright law may be a joke (and I personally believe it goes beyond being a mere joke) but lawbreaking is still lawbreaking, especially when done to meet one's selfish ends.

10-13-2010, 06:36 AM	#40
Lady Fitzgerald Wizard Posts: 2,013 Karma: 251649 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tempe, AZ, USA, Earth Device: JetBook Lite (away from home) + 1 spare, 32" TV (at home)	I'll be the first to admit current copyright law has corrupted the original intent of our Constitution and this has been fueled by the greed of current copyright owners. For a better understanding of how this has happened, this article states it very well. However, choosing not to obey a law or to deliberately disobey it because one does not agree with it or feel it is inconvenient to obey it is essentially anarchy. As I mentioned before, civil disobediance is a tool, albeit a bit questionable, that can be used to force a law to be tested by by the judicial system to determine it's constitutionality or fairness. Another, less risky tool (since it doesn't risk possible conviction) is challenging a law in the courts via lawsuit. While there are copyright owners who have abandoned the works they have the rights to and current copyright law does strangle access to those rights contrary to the original intent of the US constitution, that does not excuse deliberate violation of the laws, no matter how wrong they are, just to satisfy one's own desires. GA Russell did initially suggest trying to track down the copyright owners but then he turned around and suggested ignoring current law (which, no matter how wrong one may feel it is, is still the law) by going ahead and publishing "orphaned" works and wait to see if the owners of the rights to those works protest or not. Then, when challenged on that advice, started rationalizing his advice. That was what I found so amusing because they were the same, old, tired arguments I have seen so many times, especially since Russell claims to be a lawyer and didn't bother to explain the risks of following his advice (I'm still chortling over the "cost of doing business" line; I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that concept abused). I'm not even going to argue with Xanth's post (mostly because I doubt it will do any good). Again, it's the same, old, tired rationalization I have seen so often to justify lawbreaking. Current copyright law may be a joke (and I personally believe it goes beyond being a mere joke) but lawbreaking is still lawbreaking, especially when done to meet one's selfish ends.