Re: OMG!

[CUTjefbla@bconnex.net (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Wed, 23 May 2001 14:08:49 +0200, "Sheldon Simms"
<sheldon@semanticedge.com> wrote:

>Im Artikel <3b0b15bd.12599694@news1.on.sympatico.ca> schrieb "Jeff
>Blakeney" <CUTjefbla@bconnex.net>:
>
>> You still seem to be missing my point, the used copy the copyright
>> holder has been paid for but a pirated copy they haven't. 
>
>No, the point is quite clear to me. It is also irrelevant. The copyright
>holder gains no benefit whatsoever when I acquire the work, regardless
>of whether they benefited from it earlier or not. It does not do the
>copyright holder any good if I buy a used copy, and it does not do him
>any harm if I download it from an FTP site for free.

Okay, fine. You can't seem to grasp the simple fact that if you
increase the number of copies that exist of someone's copyrighted work
without the copyright holder benefitting in any way from those extra
copies, then the copyright holder is losing money.  This is my last
post about this because you either don't get it or don't want to.

If someone sells 10,000 copies of their program but 1,000 people
pirate it then there are now 11,000 copies in existence.  However, the
copyright holder still only got paid for 10,000 therefore their
payment per unit in existence is decreased by 10%.  Now, buying a used
copy of the software is buying one of the copies that already exists
and that the copyright holder has been paid for.  This doesn't
increase the number of copies in existence and does not decrease the
payment per unit that the copyright holder received.

You keep saying that the copyright holder should benefit from their
work then you argue that pirating their work and thereby taking money
directly out of their pocket is better than buying or being given a
used copy that doesn't harm the copyright holder in any way.  If you
really are looking for someone to call a hypocrite, I'd suggest
looking in a mirror.  You either want the copyright holder to benefit
or you don't.  You can't have it both ways.

>> Path 2:  The copyright holder directly benefits from the store buying a
>> copy directly from them.  Whether you buy it or not after that does not
>> affect the fact that the copyright holder has benefited.
>
>False. The copyright holder benefits indirectly when I buy it from a
>store. Stores buy product from manufacturers or distributors because
>they expect there to be a demand for the product. When I buy the
>product from the store, I help demonstrate that a demand exists and
>thereby encourage the store to buy more product from the manufacturer
>or distributor.

Well, this is probably the best point you've brought up in this entire
thread but it really doesn't make much difference.  Stores will only
continue buying more of a product if there "appears" to be a market
for it.  If they buy 10 copies of a game and the last copy of the game
sits on the shelf for two months (maybe with a few price reductions to
help move it) before it sells, it will appear to the store owner that
there is no longer a market for that game.  However, the person who
bought that last copy might show it to his friends that don't have it
and they may want to buy it but the store owner has not ordered more
because he didn't think there was anyone left who wanted to buy it.

If those people were to ask the store owner to get the program for
them, I'm sure the store owner would probably oblige but then this
would be just like those individuals buying directly from the
copyright holder as the store owner is doing a special order for them
and not to restock the store shelves.

Something like this happened to a friend of mine and myself.  We both
wanted to pick up a game expansion pack called "Wages of SIN" but when
we started looking for it, we couldn't find it in any stores anywhere.
My friend even went to the company's web site but couldn't order it as
they didn't ship to Canada.  There was still a market for this product
as we both had money burning a hole in our pockets to buy it but the
stores weren't carrying it.  We finally got it because some small
outfit must of come across a warehouse of older shrink wrapped
software and was selling it on stands in various stores in the area
and we both managed to find a copy.

However, this shows that your argument only works to a point and this
is why I didn't even bring it up as it really makes almost no
difference to the way I described things working.

Besides, individuals, through word of mouth, probably promote the sale
of software more than stores do.  :-)

>> Path 3:  The copyright holder directly benefits from either selling a
>> copy directly to a store or to an individual.  Now, it you buy or are
>> given that copy from that individual, it is no different than if you
>> bought it from a store. 
>
>False. It is different. An indivual purchaser of a first-hand copy is
>not a retail outlet. He has no incentive to keep buying more copies
>from the copyright holder.

See above.

>In fact, he is probably selling it to me
>because he finds the product useless, boring, or superfluous.

They could also be selling it because the are in need of cash in a
hurry, they have changed to a different program that better suits
their needs or because they will never use it again (ie. they finished
the game and it has little to no replay value).  There are lots of
reasons that they might want to part with it and I would rather people
sell or give away their used copies rather than throw them away
because the more that get thrown away, the less legal copies that are
available.

>When
>I buy the copy from him, not only does the copyright holder not
>directly benefit, but also the copyright holder cannot even expect
>to indirectly benefit through future sales.

See above including my statement about word of mouth promotion by
individuals.

>> The copyright holder is the only one that can allow more copies to be
>> made but when individuals follow path 4 and make their own copies, then
>> the copyright holder is not getting any benefit and it could be argued
>> that they are actually losing money.
>
>That could only be argued if the product was still available for sale
>in a manner that benefited the copyright holder. If it is not, then the
>number of "paid" copies can *never* increase, no matter how I
>get my copy. It is then not possible for the copyright holder to be
>losing anything, whether I download the software from an FTP site
>or not.

It is a simple formula that I discussed above.

 Effective               (# of legal copies)               Average
      Unit = ------------------------------------------- X Unit
     Price   (# of legal copies) + (# of illegal copies)   Price

The more illegal copies that exist, the lower the effective unit price
becomes.

>> Now, does my argument that buying a new or used copy (that the copyright
>> holder has been paid for) is better than pirating it (where the
>> copyright holder gets no benefit) make sense?
>
>Not for the situation we are talking about. If we were talking about
>Microsoft Word, then you would be right, but since we're talking about
>software that is not available for sale, apart from resale of old copies,
>your argument is wrong.

I'm not really sure what your point is here.  Microsoft Word is
available commercially, on the used market and I'm sure people can
track down pirated copies rather easily.  A lot of the Apple II
software is only available on the used market or by pirating it.  The
only difference I see is that it is easier to get a legal copy of MS
Word than to get certain Apple II programs.  How does this make my
argument that buying a used copy is better than pirating a copy,
wrong?

Keep in mind that the formula above, my arguments above and copyright
law do not require that the work in question be commercially
available.  As for the age of the work, only the copyright is
concerned with that and the copyrights we are talking about won't
expire for at least 50 more years.

>If you didn't sell it, you would have $-50 and a piece of software
>that you don't use anyway. If you do sell it, you don't lose anything
>because you didn't use the software anyway, but now you're only
>down $-45. That's a $5 improvement in your situation. If it's not an
>improvement, then why are you selling it?

If I have a piece of software, regardless of whether I'm using it or
not, it has a value.  If I keep the software I will be down $50 from
the initial purchase but I'll still have that piece of software that
could probably be sold for $5 so, in effect, I'm down $45.  If I sell
the software for $5 I will be down $50 from the initial purchase, I
won't have the software anymore but I will have $5 more in cash that I
didn't have before so, in effect, I'll be down $45.  Whether I sell it
or not, I'm not being "enriched".

As to why I'd be selling it, see above.  There are tons of reasons why
someone would want to sell something.

>> That certainly is no statement of law.  The law clearly states that
>> there is something wrong with downloading software from sites like
>> asimov. 
>
>False. The law says that it is illegal, assuming it can't be construed
>as fair use, which it might well be. The law doesn't say anything about
>"wrong" or "right".

Fair use can only be claimed when you are using a very small portion
of a copyrighted work.  Using the entire thing can never be claimed as
fair use.

By the way, if you are going to argue semantics, you might want to
check the definiton of the word you are nit picking.  :-)

This is one of the definitions from http://www.yourdictionary.com for
the word "wrong":

   Main Entry: 1 wrong
Pronunciation: 'ro[ng]
     Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wrang, from (assumed)
               wrang, adjective, wrong
         Date: before 12th century

1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct
      inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause 
  b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another;
      especially : TORT

2   : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles,
      practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or
      law

3   : the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as
  a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect
  b : the state of being guilty synonym see INJUSTICE

As you can see, the word has a few different meanings, the first of
which clearly shows that saying that something is illegal can also be
stated as saying that it is wrong.  You seem to have been using
definitions 2 and 3 just fine, though.

>> Most of the programs there are still protected under copyright
>> law so it is illegal for you to make a copy by downloading it.
>
>It *might* be illegal. It is not wrong.

It definitely is illegal.  Copyright law is quite clear.  If the work
is copyrighted then you can't make copies of that work without the
express permission of the copyright holder (with few exceptions such
as a back up copy) while the work is copyrighted.

Also, see above about the definition of the word wrong.

>> By the way, if having people point out to you that you are a pirate
>> doesn't bother you, then why have we been having such a long
>> conversation?
>
>Because I'm a philanthropist. I'm spending valuable time trying to
>show you that your attitude protects no one and, in fact, harms society.

My attitude is what the law currently states.  Telling me why you
think the law is off base is pointless.  I'm not going to get the law
changed.  If you want it changed then spend more time trying to get
that accomplished than trying to justify your breaking the law to me.
You can give me all the justifications in the world but it won't
change the fact that you are breaking the law.

If you don't think you can get the law changed then you might want to
look into investing that time into helping projects like The Lost
Classics Project or The Treasure Chest Project get titles reclassified
as shareware, freeware or public domain or urge the copyright holders
to make their work available again in some way.

>> Yes, it is completely clear that it is illegal
>
>See above.

Ditto.  :-)

>> No, a trial is not necessary to determine whether something is illegal
>> or not. ...
>> To determine whether something is illegal or not you simply need to read
>> the laws.
>
>This is quite naive. Courts have the responsibility of deciding what
>those words written on paper actually mean. In copyright law, there
>is a concept of "fair use". How do you know if use of a copy constitutes
>fair use? You have to go to court.

There is also a large section in copyright law that defines fair use.
You only need to go to trial if there is some question as to whether
something you did falls under fair use or not.  You could also just
plead guilty or the prosecution might drop the case.  At any rate, the
trial isn't "necessary" but it might help clarify things.

>> If there is a law that says it is illegal to drive faster
>> than the posted speed limit and you drive faster than that limit, then
>> you are doing something illegal.
>
>Probably. But what if there was a provision that said people can
>drive over the speed limit if there is an "emergency". Who would
>have to decide if there was an emergency in a particular case?
>That would be a court.

In most cases it would be the police.  If the police pulled someone
over for speeding and they were given what they felt was a valid
"emergency" they wouldn't even charge the individual.  If the police
decided that the individual didn't have a valid "emergency" then the
individual would be charged with breaking the law.  If the individual
agreed that they did break the law, then they would just plead guilty
and a trial wouldn't be necessary.

The only time a trial would be necessary is if the individual was
charged but they felt that they did have a valid "emergency".  They
could then opt to go to trial to let the courts decide whether to keep
or dismiss the charges against the individual.

>> There is no evidence that the software has been abandoned,
>
>There is plenty of evidence that the copyright holder has no interest
>in the software.

I suppose the fact that some copyright holders are removing the
copyright from their work and reclassifying it as public domain could
be construed as evidence that they have no interest in the software.

However, very few have been reclassifying to public domain.  Most of
the reclassified titles have had their copyright remain in place but
the distribution methods have changed.  Shareware and freeware are
still copyrighted works but are being made available more freely.  The
fact that the copyright holders have chosen to keep their copyright
says that they do indeed have an interest in their software.

If there is any other evidence that they have no interest in their
software, I haven't seen it.

>There is no evidence that the copyright holder wants to prevent the
>software from being made available.

There is also no evidence that the copyright holder wants to allow the
software to be made available.

However, there has been a number of instances in the past where
copyright holders have taken action when they discovered or were
informed of copyright violations of their work.  This is evidence that
some of the copyright holders want to prevent the software from being
made available.

>> that the copyright holder even knows it is being illegally distributed
>> or that the copyright holder even knows there is any interest in their
>> work.
>
>The fact that they don't know it is being distributed on the internet,
>although it is being done publically in a worldwide forum, and people
>are interested enough to spend lots of time arguing about it, is good
>evidence that the copyright holder has no interest in the product.

How often do you read csa2 and how often do you read every line of
every message posted?  It can be quite easy to miss something.  Also,
many of the copyright holders are companies.  Do you really think they
are going to pay someone to read csa2 to make sure no one is pirating
their stuff?  No, and they don't (or at least shouldn't) have to.
Copyrighting their work is their way of telling the world: "You can't
make copies of this without our permission until either the copyright
expires or we remove the copyright."  There is no law requiring them
to continually remind people that their work is copyrighted and
shouldn't be pirated.  There is no law saying that they have to
continually tell people that they still have an interest in their
work.

>> I try VERY hard to keep legality and morality separate. 
>
>That is simply not true. You have repeatedly asserted that it is "wrong"
>to download from Asimov. In your very last post, to which I am replying
>you say "The law clearly states that there is something WRONG with
>downloading software from sites like asimov. " (my emphasis), which
>probably the most blatant confusion of morality and legality that I have
>ever seen on usenet.

See definition of the word wrong above.

>> The law is the reason.  I'm not calling people pirates and telling them
>> they are breaking the law because it is against my own personal morals. 
>> I'm telling them that because they are breaking the law.
>
>Why are you bothering then? If morality is not an issue then it shouldn't
>matter to you if someone else downloads a disk image. You won't be
>faced with any legal consequences. (Of course, neither will the person
>who downloads the software, but that's beside the point.)

Actually, I could face legal consequences.  Certain places have laws
that say that if you can safely do something that would prevent a
crime in progress or prevent one from happening, then you are legally
bound to do so and face legal consequences if you don't.  There is
also a law that is pretty much everywhere that states that you must
report any crimes you are witness to or aware of.  Failure to do so
can result in charges such as aiding and abetting.

>> If you truly believe you statement that "There is nothing
>> wrong with downloading abandoned software from asimov" then you should
>> have no problem with admitting that you are pirating software.
>
>It depends on what you mean by "pirating software". If "pirating
>software" is defined to mean "copying abandoned software without
>permission of the copyright holder by downloading it from an FTP site"
>then I have no problem with admitting that. Likewise, if we choose to
>define "kicking dogs" in the same manner, then I'll admit to kicking
>dogs. In both cases, however, I reject any connotations of moral
>turpitude, harm to the general well being, or harm to any particular
>person or living thing.

When I say pirating software I mean "copying copyrighted software
without the permission of the copyright holder".  We can't use the
term abandoned in there because no one has contacted the copyright
holder to find out if they have abandoned the software and if they
have, then they have most likely removed (or will remove) the
copyright.  No one else has the right to determine whether the
software is abandoned or not and besides, I don't recall any provision
in copyright law for abandonment issues.  Also, it doesn't matter
where you get the copy from so I skipped the part about downloading
from an FTP site.

I have no idea what the "kicking dogs" thing is about.

Feel free to be comfortable with your morals, to convince yourself
that no one is being harmed and that you are not contributing to a
societal shift towards anarchy.  Just remember that no matter how you
feel about copying copyrighted materials or what reasons you come up
with to justify doing it, it is still illegal and don't try to
convince people otherwise.

--
 Jeff Blakeney - Dean of the Apple II Unversity on A2Central.com