U12315@UICVM.BITNET (02/02/86)
I have a question for all of you *LEGEL* experts, but first I think
I should say something about myself. I am a student (and an undergrad
at that) whose major is CS with a concentration in Pre-Law. I find
the Law very interesting. I have found this forum to be very helpful
in learning about the Law.
My question deals with how some people sight cases and have information
about them? Are there computer programs avalable?? Any for the
Mainframe?? How about for the PC ? Are there any Public Domain copies
available? Thanx for any info that is appended.
Jim Harmening
(U12315@UICVM.BITNET)Frank@SU-CSLI.ARPA (Frank Chen) (02/11/86)
Well, I wouldn't say I was a *legel* [sic] expert (since I am still in law school), but I'll try to answer your question about how people sight [sic] cases.... Once you are in law school, you'll soon find out what all these cites are. Basically though, a case citation looks something like this (in its most abbreviated form). For example: United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1975) This tells you the case name (who is suing who), and that you can read what the court said about this case in volume 423 of United States Reports on page 411, and that the case was decided in 1975. People have information about these cases because they've looked up and read the cases in a law library. There are two major computerized legal services called LEXIS and WESTLAW which help lawyers and law students do their work. You will undoubtably encounter them in law school and when you work in a law firm. They are accessed by network. (They're not simple programs for which you could get a copy to run on your PC, and they're certainly are not public domain software to do all of this. By the way, computerized research is very expensive.). Frank Chen UCLA School of Law -------
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (06/19/86)
I am testing the new release of SENDGATE. Well, new to me anyway. I have been unable to use the old NETMAIL routine to send notes to INFOLAW, so I am hoping to rejoin the living with this release.
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET.UUCP (07/16/86)
I'm not personally familiar with the group HALT, and I'm not a lawyer - YET. However, I do have some feelings about those groups and I think I can speak for at least some members of the legal profession. The typical attitude the public bears toward lawyers is captured most effectively in a recent editorial by James Kirkpatrick (or is is Kilpatrick?). At any rate, speaking about the proposed Tort Reform legislation, he stated simply that the law needed to be changed, that lawyers were scum because they didn't want it changed, and that all lawyers were sitting around lining their pockets with the blood money of hapless injury clients. It would have been nice to hear what specifically needed to be changed, or why specifically the American Trial Lawyers Association objected to the legislation, but he stuck strictly to an ad hominum attack. I see not even a basis for a cogent argument there. Still, I suspect that 90% of all non-lawyers you might care to ask would agree, without anything more than a vague understanding why. It is roughly equivalent to blaming the undertaker because your loved one has died. Shakespeare once said, in Richard III I believe, "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"... and the Richard III mentality is still prevalent. I also object to the feeling that lawyers are responsible for the laws they work with. It would be just as sensible to blame doctors treating cancer patients for having created cancer. Lawyers work with law as it is, not as they wish it were. It is the duty of the citizenry to abolish those laws they find repugnant and enforce those they find agreeable. It is the job of the legal system to discern the intent of statutes and practice accordingly. If you want to reform the legal system, start with the law, not the legal profession. Finally, the entire legal profession, like any other, is subject to the pressures of those it serves. I am not saying that lawyers are blameless in the "legal tyranny" which darkens the profession. I do think, however, that it is encumbent upon every citizen to be informed about the law and work within it, or to refrain from participating entirely. Yes, that means that I would object to my considered vote in the electorate being cancelled out by someone who exercises the random method. Don't get me wrong, I am not directing that statement at you, but there are people whose knowledge of the workings of their government, including the law, is so dismal that, literally, they should be prevented from voting. P.S. If you get the idea I'm trying to stir up some discussion on this topic, you are right.
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (07/18/86)
David Kay
I hope you will pardon my proclivity for hyperbole, but
your point is well taken. It was indeed a less than
accurate representation to say that Shakespeare advocated
the demise of all lawyers. I think you will agree though,
the Dick the Butcher represents a good many people we all
know, and that while few of us will be killed in proletariat
uprisings, lawyers are the brunt of many an unkind barb, if
not bard.
vis:
A priest, a rabbi, a missionary and a lawyer died in a
plane crash. From the gates of heaven the priest was shown
to a small cottage, which pleased him well. The rabbi and
the missionary likewise were shown to the modest heavenly
abodes. The lawyer, however was taken to a splendid mansion.
Curious, he asked why the difference. "We get their kind
every day," replied Saint Peter, "you're the first lawyer
we've had."
I'm sure you've heard a thousand like that. Ever hear
one about doctors? accountants? My point was simply that I
take exception to the hysteric mentality that prevails among
the masses. I, too am a "computer person". While I've
never been chided about that aspect of my career, I find the
other side only slightly less reviled in the eyes of my
colleagues than AIDS victims.
David Massey
Programmer/Analyst, University of Toledo
Law Student, University of ToledoASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET.UUCP (07/21/86)
.pp Let me begin by saying that I will respond to all INFO-LAW ARPAmail through this BBS since it is my hope to stimulate an open forum for discussion. Also, I'm glad to see that my letter on HELP et al has sparked so much activity on the BBS. .pp So, as Warner Wolfe would say... let's go to the video tape! .pp In reply to Mary Long's note: Yes, it is an elitist view to say that people who aren't informed should not be allowed to vote. And in the history of our nation, attempts to implement such a scheme have met with failure. You are indeed correct that the alternative to preventing, say, the illiterate sector of our population, from voting is to educate them. I suppose that I suffer from the "I've been in University life too long" syndrome, but the idea of people walking to the booth without a clue as to the issues of the election appalls me. .pp To an empty mind, even the smallest idea seems important. Picture for example our anti-lawyer topic. Imagine, then, an electorate of anti-lawyer people (anti-women, anti-jew, anti-gay, anti-blonde... pick one) voting simply on the basis of a nebulous idea of apocryphal origin at best, or even worse, an idea planted or built by someone purposely playing on public ignorance. .pp Given that as a starting point, it is not hard to picture an electorate voting blindly. We had a recent election here at the University on the adoption of a union. I was utterly shocked when I overheard people talking afterwards saying "did voting yes on the issue mean we accept or reject the union?"... Imagine taking such an important issue no more seriously than to be unaware of how one's vote had been cast. I would think that even the most concerned citizen would be discouraged to think that voting would be reduced to the lowest common denominator, no matter what that LCD might be. .pp But I really think that is off the topic. What we are really getting at is how people feel about lawyers. It is indeed the job of the legal genre to "interpret" laws. But that is hardly carte blanche to read into them anything that suits the interpreter. While it is true that laws have been read in diametrically opposite ways at different times, I think by and large they are translated, if that is the right word, as closely as possible to their intent. They say that two things you should never watch being made are sausage and laws. Well, I for one would not only like to watch laws being made, I have a few ideas about making them. I think we should all take an active interest in that. A unified electorate could change the course of legal history in a decade as surely and as much as any supreme court ever has. The ABA is no more the hobgoblin of the law than the AMA. Or the ACLU. .pp And this is directed to Asbed as well.... .pp I think the notion that laws are "interpreted" by courts (not lawyers, by the way) is an overblown idea. It was a hundred years after the civil war that the "lawyers" finally got around to "interpreting" the 13th amendment. All that was done was that an ambitious Thurgood Marshall, then NAACP counsel, now Supreme Court Justice, said, "look... this is the law", and the courts said, "you know, you're right." Marshall didn't find any new laws, nor did he breathe meaning in them that the framers did not intend. He simply wielded the power of the court to give effect to the unmanifest intent of the law. Had that effect been contrary to intent, it would be the duty of the citizenry to intervene. It is said that we get the government we deserve. Likewise for law, I propose. I think people like you are expressing a valid objection to something, the law, the courts, and maybe lawyers too. But it is the law, not the lawyers that control the legal system. And the law belongs to all of us. The illiterate as well as the educated, the rich and poor and, oh this hurts me... the liberals as well as the conservatives. (forgive me William F. Buckley Jr.). Oh well enough pedantism... your turn. Dave
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET.UUCP (07/21/86)
Let me begin by saying that I will respond to all INFO-
LAW ARPAmail through this BBS since it is my hope to
stimulate an open forum for discussion. Also, I'm glad to
see that my letter on HELP et al has sparked so much
activity on the BBS.
So, as Warner Wolfe would say... let's go to the video
tape!
In reply to Mary Long's note: Yes, it is an elitist view
to say that people who aren't informed should not be allowed
to vote. And in the history of our nation, attempts to
implement such a scheme have met with failure. You are
indeed correct that the alternative to preventing, say, the
illiterate sector of our population, from voting is to
educate them. I suppose that I suffer from the "I've been
in University life too long" syndrome, but the idea of
people walking to the booth without a clue as to the issues
of the election appalls me.
To an empty mind, even the smallest idea seems important.
Picture for example our anti-lawyer topic. Imagine, then,
an electorate of anti-lawyer people (anti-women, anti-jew,
anti-gay, anti-blonde... pick one) voting simply on the
basis of a nebulous idea of apocryphal origin at best, or
even worse, an idea planted or built by someone purposely
playing on public ignorance.
Given that as a starting point, it is not hard to picture
an electorate voting blindly. We had a recent election here
at the University on the adoption of a union. I was utterly
shocked when I overheard people talking afterwards saying
"did voting yes on the issue mean we accept or reject the
union?"... Imagine taking such an important issue no more
seriously than to be unaware of how one's vote had been
cast. I would think that even the most concerned citizen
would be discouraged to think that voting would be reduced
to the lowest common denominator, no matter what that LCD
might be.
But I really think that is off the topic. What we are
really getting at is how people feel about lawyers. It is
indeed the job of the legal genre to "interpret" laws. But
that is hardly carte blanche to read into them anything that
suits the interpreter. While it is true that laws have been
read in diametrically opposite ways at different times, I
think by and large they are translated, if that is the right
word, as closely as possible to their intent. They say that
two things you should never watch being made are sausage and
laws. Well, I for one would not only like to watch laws
being made, I have a few ideas about making them. I think
we should all take an active interest in that. A unified
electorate could change the course of legal history in a
decade as surely and as much as any supreme court ever has.
The ABA is no more the hobgoblin of the law than the AMA.
Or the ACLU.
And this is directed to Asbed as well....
I think the notion that laws are "interpreted" by courts
(not lawyers, by the way) is an overblown idea. It was a
hundred years after the civil war that the "lawyers" finally
got around to "interpreting" the 13th amendment. All that
was done was that an ambitious Thurgood Marshall, then NAACP
counsel, now Supreme Court Justice, said, "look... this is
the law", and the courts said, "you know, you're right."
Marshall didn't find any new laws, nor did he breathe
meaning in them that the framers did not intend. He simply
wielded the power of the court to give effect to the
unmanifest intent of the law. Had that effect been contrary
to intent, it would be the duty of the citizenry to
intervene. It is said that we get the government we
deserve. Likewise for law, I propose. I think people like
you are expressing a valid objection to something, the law,
the courts, and maybe lawyers too. But it is the law, not
the lawyers that control the legal system. And the law
belongs to all of us. The illiterate as well as the
educated, the rich and poor and, oh this hurts me... the
liberals as well as the conservatives. (forgive me William
F. Buckley Jr.).
Oh well enough pedantism... your turn. DaveASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET.UUCP (07/21/86)
Please only send one of the files I send. The first one was only a script file, unformatted. The second was the formatted one I wanted to send. Dave Massey
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (07/23/86)
Dear Campbell Pardon my FAUX PAS, but I thought for some reason that there was a real human being responsible for forwarding those notes to the BBS, and that they were screened in some way. Silly me. All the whitespace comes from my having formatted the SCRIPT file using an XEDIT macro which assumes that you are printed 8 1/2 x 11 sheets and that you want your output centered vertically on the page. I often get careless and forget to delete the leading spacing. je me 'xcuse sil vous plait!!! dave massey
gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (John Gilmore) (07/25/86)
What is this bull with "Bitnet mail follows"? Don't these people know how to create subject lines?
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (07/25/86)
Perhaps, and I'm just guessing here, being only one of "those people" from BITNET, that "BITNET mail follows" means that BITNET mail follows, as opposed to ARPANET mail or CSNET mail or some other type of mail. Some people might be interested in knowing from which network mail originated to facilitate replies to that mail. Were you not aware that there are different procedures for sending mail across different networks? DMM
ron@BRL.ARPA (Ron Natalie) (07/26/86)
But BITNET uses loosely RFC822 headers and that is a pretty bizarre interpretation of what goes in the SUBJECT line. If you wish to identify BITNET mail, there is probably a better way of doing it, leaving SUBJECT for the sender specified topic. -Ron
murage.PA@XEROX.COM (07/27/86)
If you will look carefully at a sender's address you will notice that it does indeed tell you where the mail comes from. Most of us who have been on e-mail from way back have mail systems that take care of "facilitating replies to mail". Suffice it to say that a heading hinting at contents is far more helpful than the phrase "BITNET mail follows" .murage.
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (07/28/86)
Dear John Gilmore,
I'm afraid your idea of an ordered society leaves much to
be desired, and is further reinforcement for my thesis of an
educated voting populace.
> My view of the main problem is that people
> wrote the law as a way to control other people. I
> don't want to be controlled.
It is precisely because people don't want to be control-
led that we must have laws. Do you think that the Bill of
Rights was written to protect the wealthy land owners who
wrote it? Hardly. The Bill of Rights, and arguably all
laws, are written to protect the interests of the minori-
ties, the "discrete and insular" minorities typically lack-
ing the political and economic power to assert their rights
on their own. In the early sixties, the Ku Klux Klan didn't
want to be controlled either. But thank God, and the dili-
gent effort of an army of lawyers in the court system, they
were.
Our freedom is intimately tied to the conduct of others.
If I, not wishing to be controlled, choose to shoot you dead
for sport, then I have acted as freely as I can imagine.
But what has happened to your freedom? Absolute freedom is
a concept of little value in structuring the relationships
among people. The law is the best approach to limiting ab-
solute freedom only to the extent that the greatest number
of people may enjoy the highest degree of freedom possible.
> Another problem is that recently the law has
> been trying to fix blame for things to specific
> individuals, and provide specific redress to peo-
> ple who claim to be injured.
Recently you say? As recently as the 17th century eng-
lish courts have experimented with systems of adjusting the
relationships between citizens. It becomes necessary, when
one person is injured by another, to determine whether it is
fair, or "equitable" (as in courts of Equity), to transfer
the cost of the harm from the victim to some other person.
In Las Vegas, a hotel is required to have lifeguard per-
sonnel on duty while the guests are using a pool of greater
than a certain depth. This is to protect the guest from
dying, a very serious harm indeed. One hotel, wishing to
avoid the cost of a lifeguard, posted a sign which said "NO
LIFEGUARD ON DUTY". A young boy who could not read slipped
into the pool area and was drowned.
Now, if the hotel could avoid a DUTY imposed by law sim-
ply by posting a sign announcing their intention to disre-
gard the law, what would happen to our ordered society? No,
the hotel was at fault, and was ordered to pay damages.
Bravo. Without such controls, you could not be sure of the
food you eat being safe, of the structural soundness of your
home or automobile, the quality of care from your physician,
or any relationship in which you are forced to interface
with another human being.
Those well-read on the subject know of the "New Zealand"
plan, which limits damage awards and levies a tax against
each citizen to create a fund from which those damage awards
are paid. Again I say that if the current system is not
acceptable, put in a new one, work with the old one, but for
God's sake, don't just sit there and bitch.
> Another recent bad trend (still reading?) is
> the idea that you should be arrested and jailed
> for "looking like you are about to commit a
> crime". E.g. if you drive down the road drunk,
> you are jailed. You haven't killed any kids, you
> haven't sideswiped any trees, you were just driv-
> ing down the road and it's time to go to jail.
Unless I missed something, it is illegal to drive drunk,
whether or not you hit someone and kill them. Why? For the
same reason that it is illegal to set time bombs in crowded
public buildings. The real harm is not the action, but its
logical and probable consequence. Must we wait until the
bomb is detonated before arresting the person who planted
it? Do we then excuse criminals who are caught in the act
of committing a crime because their crime is inchoate? I
hope we never come to that!
> PS: The idea that you, the citizen, are re-
> sponsible for knowing the text and meaning and
> current interpretation of every law on the books
> is another great fuckup in the current law. Not
> even the judges and lawyers and congresspeople
> know this stuff, how is the average citizen ex-
> pected to?
No citizen is expected to know all the laws and their
current interpretations. Nobody does. The fact that many
cases go to appeal is an indication that even lawyers can't
agree on what these interpretations are, let alone know them
all. My paradigm was a bit more <outre>. I can see no jus-
tification for people not even knowing how their vote was
cast (remember the union election I mentioned?). Nor can I
see allowing important issues to be decided by people who
have no idea what the issue is, when all that is required to
find out is to read a paper, or watch the news. That hardly
requires a Juris Doctor of every citizen, since the news is
aimed at a third grade level of understanding.
P.S. The reason that Congress is made up of lawyers is
that 215 million non-lawyers voted for them.
Dave MasseyASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (07/29/86)
Dear George Wood, If my mail headers are in any way offensive to the standards of this NETWORK, I can only say that I am using a SENDGATE EXEC that I got from SLACVM. I would be glad to use a different one if it is better for this NETWORK. If the one you have has some modifications, please pass it on. Also, if it needs any mods for VM sites, I could take a crack at that too. Dave Massey
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET.UUCP (07/30/86)
I have set up a new VAX account here at the University of Toledo so that I can find out what all the hoopla is about MAIL etc.... I would be grateful if my mail were sent to that account from now on. This is my work account on the IBM system, and the VAX account is strictly for use with INFO-LAW and similar BBS. My new VAX id is CSDMM at UOFT02. Thanks Dave Massey
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (08/07/86)
This message is empty.
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (08/22/86)
Dear Asbed It is unfortunate, but true, that the United States, once the melting pot of peoples, has sufferred lately from a boiling over of sorts. The cumulative effect of such events as the Iranian hostage crisis, the Munich Olympic disaster, and the bombing of US marine barracks in Beirut (et al) has created an hysteria not seen since World War II, when anyone of oriental descent was herded into "detention centers", the free world's answer to concentration camps. Now, I point out these things not in defense of the police officers who stopped you, but only to explain why you are in a bad position when it comes to prejudice. Any Middle Eastern nationals, those who look like Middle Easterners, have Middle Eastern sounding surnames, etc... have displaced all other minorities, including blacks, as the most oppressed minority in America. Easy to say for a white anglo-saxon protestant you say? Perhaps, but WASPs are, in fact, the ruling class of our oligarchical society. End of story. As for your dilemma with the police, you are again at a disadvantage. Whether at 56 or 65, it seems you were speeding. That's all it takes. You're on the wrong side of the law, and your bargaining position is significantly weakened. IF you have had a witness or something, it might have been different. We here in Toledo, Ohio have a funny plight. When driving in Michigan, which could happen depending on what side of the street you are on, 65 is the de facto speed limit. Michigan troopers just ignore it. In Ohio, it's 55. Easy to get careless, and try telling the Ohio trooper you got away with it in Michigan. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now. I think you've done all you can. I also think not much will come of it. The bottom line is this; you may have been unfairly treated because of your ethnicity, you probably could have gotten off if you were a WASP, police officers LOVE to exercise their power over civilians, the do it all the time and get away with it. Dave Massey
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (08/25/86)
Dear Colleagues, Has anybody heard or seen anything about Wrongful Birth and/or Wrongful Life cases recently? I am writing a critical casenote about a case that came down in the Idaho Supreme Court last year, BLAKE v. CRUZ, 698 P.2d 315, which allowed the claim for WB but not for WL. As far as I know, there are only two cases that allowed WL, CURLANDER v. BIO SCIENCE LABS, 106 Cal. App. 3d 811, 165 Cal. Rptr. 477 (1980) and HARBESON v. PARKE DAVIS, 98 Wash. 2d 460 (1983). What I'm interested in is critical comment on whether any court has taken the position that WL should be allowed as a claim indepenent of WB. Your own opinions would be equally as welcome as those of courts and/or legal scholars, since I am trying to ferret out a sourt of "national conscience" on this issue. Thanks for your help Dave Massey P.S. Wrongful Birth is an action brought by PARENTS seeking to recover damages for a planned-for child which was born impaired, assuming that the parents would have aborted or not conceived had they known the child would have been born in an impaired state and that the negligence of the doctor prevented them from making an informed choice. Wrongful Life is a suit brought by the CHILD, on the same set of facts as above, but stating that being born in this state was worse than not being born at all, therefore seeking damages from having to live in such a state at all. (this is VERY brief, I hope it helps)
jc@cdx39.UUCP (09/05/86)
> Easy to say for a white anglo-saxon protestant you say? > Perhaps, but WASPs are, in fact, the ruling class of our > oligarchical society. End of story. Our oligarchy isn't quite as uniform and seamless as some would have us believe. Here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the dominant names are mostly Irish and Italian. But things are changing; both the candidates for governor have Greek names. Granted, the centuries-old money is in WASP hands. But there's lots of decades-old money in slightly darker hands. True, there is lots of prejudice against middle-easterners. But the major frictions around here currently are with the Cambodian and Vietnamese immigrants, and with the older Chinese population. Members of these groups are being attacked and beaten, and the courts are shrugging it off. As for the cops, well, sometimes they are the attackers. On the other hand, if there were a big news story like the Iranian hostages, there is little doubt that local bullies would use it as an excuse to beat the #$@#$ out of a few people with Arabic-sounding names. Yes, I know that Iran is not an Arab country. So? Around here, the large Armenian population got a lot of the blame for the hostages' troubles. When people are looking for victims to harass, they rarely go to the trouble of making such fine distinctions. Look at all the nuts that blamed the Jews for OPEC's price increases a decade ago.
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (09/29/86)
Dear Colleagues, I know this is not the type of topic we usually discuss on this network, but I had to get this out. I read a case in Trusts as Estates that dealt with Anatomical Gifts. After the case the editors pointed out that we would have far more donated organs if we placed the burden on the person "not interested in saving life" and not vice versa. In other words, they proposed, I kid you not, that we operate on the presumption (rebuttable, I hope) that EVERYONE wanted to donate unless they took an affirmative action to indicate to the contrary. They also added that this is routine in some parts of Europe. The bottom line was that you would be assumed to have donative intent, and that if you failed to object, you would be eviscerated at death. Now I know that some circumstances mandate autopsies, but this is another thing entirely. The editors were gracious enough to include an editorial of the opposing view pointing out that this was only slightly removed from mandatory cannibalism, to which I reply - very slightly. Dave Massey
K538911@CZHRZU1A.BITNET (09/30/86)
Please add me to your mailing list.
thanks, patrik
Patrik Eschle, K538911 at CZHRZU1A.BITNETASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (10/01/86)
I suggested this last year and it worked out pretty well, so here goes nothing, again... Some of us are regulars on this service, but I bet there are lots of new subscribers, and/or people with new USERIDS. So why don't we introduce ourselves again. I'll start. I'm Dave Massey (ASPDMM @ UOFT01, CSDMM @ UOFT02), Programmer/Analyst at the University of Toledo and 3rd year law student at U of T College of Law. Dave Massey
ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (10/03/86)
Dear Paul,
My goodness, how could I have been so presumptuous as to
prevail upon your invaluable time?! I guess I didn't
realize that every note on the NET was mandatory reading for
everyone who received it. I certainly wasn't aware that
replies were mandatory as well.
Why would anyone care....? Strange as it may seem, there
are those of us who do not simply and passively read the
notes we get from INFO-LAW. In the past, I have
established off-NET communications with persons having
similar interests as my own for purposes of, among other
things, writing law review articles, publishing scholarly
papers, refining my seminar presentations and generally
furthering my knowledge of the law. I was under the perhaps
mistaken impression that THAT was the purpose of this NET,
not a social club, nor simply a party line for idle chatter.
You may be surprised to know that there are those who
cared enough that some guy named Dave Massey.... was here
to contact me off-NET through BITNET and even the U.S.
Postal Service ("snail-mail"). And so the introductions
were not a waste of time. Speaking of which, I hardly see
how that could have been a waste of anything since we are
not competing for finite resources here, nobody told you
you had to introduce yourself and nobody even told you you
had to read that note. You could have just purged it like I
do with many of the notes I receive from the NET and which I
should have done with yours.
I think maybe you miss the real utility of a NET. I
would much rather establish communications with
knowledgeable, mature people with whom I can exchange
information in a manner beneficial to us all than throw
random comments to the wind, not knowing if there is
anyone out there who has any idea what I'm talking about.
In short, I am indeed sorry that I wasted your time, and
even more so that I wasted my own in replying to your
ridiculous note. However, I do hope that this reply will
serve to point out some values of the NET that other people
might have missed.
Dave MasseyASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (10/14/86)
Dennis, Consider the alternative to the question you asked what would happen if people were allowed to use PD software for public or corporate gain? Would it be fair for you to sell me a copy of software you got free from PD? Should REARS CO. be allowed to develop and sell packages based on PD software? Ostensibly, the reason Joe Programmer made his software PD was that he wanted it to be available at no cost to anyone who wanted it. Any attempt to sell it would defeat Joe's intention, no? Moreover, what were the reasons that Joe made his pgm PD? Perhaps, one might suggest, to develop his image and credibility in the software mkt. Therefore if you remove his header and place your own name on the pgm, you have deprived him of that right. Note that a copyright is not simply the right to SELL software. If it's yours you can sell it, give it away, or whatever. I guess these things seem pretty obvious to me, so maybe I've missed your point. Maybe you'd care to pursue this question further? Dave Massey
drears@ARDEC.ARPA ("1LT Dennis G. Rears", FSAC) (10/14/86)
->=Dave Massey
->
->Dennis,
->
-> Consider the alternative to the question you asked
-> what would happen if people were allowed to use PD software
->for public or corporate gain? Would it be fair for you to
->sell me a copy of software you got free from PD? Should
->REARS CO. be allowed to develop and sell packages based on
->PD software? Ostensibly, the reason Joe Programmer made his
->software PD was that he wanted it to be available at no cost
->to anyone who wanted it. Any attempt to sell it would
->defeat Joe's intention, no?
The law I believe is clear; motivation does not matter, the
actual action is what matters. This is already done
in a sense with thousands of products. Government reports are
repackaged (by private conpanies) and sold to the masses when
they can call up the local Government Printing Office
and get them for bargain basement prices. A lot of tax guides are
nothing more than rewrites of free IRS publications. Generic drugs
that are made by companies when the orginal patent expired. The old
40's & 50's movies that are being sold on videotape for $9 because
the movie company allowed the copyright to expired.
->
-> Moreover, what were the reasons that Joe made his pgm PD?
->Perhaps, one might suggest, to develop his image and
->credibility in the software mkt. Therefore if you remove
->his header and place your own name on the pgm, you have
->deprived him of that right. Note that a copyright is not
->simply the right to SELL software. If it's yours you can
->sell it, give it away, or whatever.
He can do the same by keeping a copyright and allowing for free
copying. I will not have deprived him of that right because he has
released that right to the world. That is why one must think before
placing something in the PD.
->
-> I guess these things seem pretty obvious to me, so maybe
->I've missed your point. Maybe you'd care to pursue this
->question further?
->
The point I was trying to make is a legal point not a moral or
an ethical point. First If you want to control your work you must
copyright it. At that point you can control modifications, public
access, corporate or profit use, and the whole spectrum of copyright
rights.
The question I asked is once is it put in the public domain;
does the creator retain any rights. I believe the answer to this
is no. Yet I see in many Programs a statement to the effect:
This software has been placed in the public domain by XXXX. You
may copy at will as long as this notice is put in. It is forbidden
to use this software for profit.
This statement is a contradiction is terms. Once it is p.d. I
believe the creator has lost any and all exclusive rights. I am
justing asking if anyone knows of any legal precedents that
would give the creator any rights.
->
->Dave Massey
Personnaly I respect all the statements whether I legally have to
or not. BUt there are a few people out there who won't respect it.
Dennis