On 29 Apr, 14:05, Jim - NN7K wrote:
IF you read Brian's material, you will find out WHY
he no longer supports it-- too many pirated copies
includeing some of the "Ham SHAREWARE" and Freeware"
disks! Cant say I can blame him- Those his bread
and butter- NOT for free! Jim



Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 17:20:40 -0700, art wrote:

On 28 Apr, 13:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On 28 Apr 2007 11:18:14 -0700, art wrote:

AO program by Brian Beazely which is
Minninec based but Brian
has not supported that program in years. Based on that info I suspect
that could be classed now as freeware so a Google search may well
supply a user that is willing to provide a copy.
This would be a clear case of piracy and the violation of copyright
held by the owner. Any attempts of others to provide "free" or "paid"
copies are violating that law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Nothing is "clear" with respect to copyright.

I am quite sure that Brian Beazely "clearly" marked his product with
the necessary marks of intellectual property ownership.

If a library owns a copy and then makes another copy for patrons use

That never happens in any reputable Library. They have absolutely no
interest in supporting piracy.

you again get
into another murky area because that involves a exception area that is
not clear in substance.

There is nothing murky about copying Brian Beazely's product and
distributing it. You are not going to get a pirated copy from any
Library.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very interesting Jim, I hadn't heard that. The rumor that I heard was
that his computor was hacked which I thought was strange. None the
less I see the law as being unenforceable because copying is difficult
to prove and as the music industry has found out the fed courts are
not interested in individual prosecutions. Another point that is murky
with respect to a copyright is that the complaintant has to illustrate
how the offence marred his ability to collect money on his ownership
and if there is evidence that financial reward is no longer being
pursued the copyright can easily be declared withdrawn. This action
can also be taken if a patent is not actively pursued. In both patent
and copyright laws the "intent" is to encourage declaration of ones
ingenuety for the benefit of all in exchange for the sole right
to reap rewards that are being actively sort. During the last decade
Congress have acted in the areas of patent law and copyright law which
benefitted the former but weakened the latter. Either way the law does
provide a method of compensation if the offender has resources, if he
hasn't prosecution becomes moot. Morally I see it as wrong to copy
what does not belong to you but to enforce moral behavior is a very
dicy exercise.
Art