Re: OMG!

["Sheldon Simms" <sheldon@semanticedge.com>]

Im Artikel <3b0b15bd.12599694@news1.on.sympatico.ca> schrieb "Jeff
Blakeney" <CUTjefbla@bconnex.net>:

> On Fri, 18 May 2001 12:14:16 +0200, "Sheldon Simms"
> <sheldon@semanticedge.com> wrote:
> 
>>No I'm not. I'm agreeing that it's better that the copyright holder get
>>some benefit from the work.
>>
>>When I buy a second hand copy of an abandoned program, the copyright
>>holder doesn't benefit in any way.
> 
> 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.

<picture snipped>

> Path 1:  The copyright holder directly benefits from you buying their
> work directly from them.
> 
> 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.

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

> 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.

> 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.

> If I buy a program for $50 and
> sell it to you for $5 then I'm still down $45 so you giving me $5
> certainly isn't going to enrich me.

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?

> 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".

> 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.

> 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.

> Yes, it is completely clear that it is illegal

See above.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> that the copyright holder has no interest in making the software
> available

There is no evidence that the copyright holder wants 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.

> 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.

> 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.)

> 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.

> The piracy issue in general has been discussed here quite often in the
> past so if you want to go over it again I would suggest that you find an
> archive of messages from here and go over them.

Indeed. Surf over to http://groups.google.com and you'll see me
making the same arguments as far back as you can go.

-- 
sheldon@semanticedge.com  "The term (denotation t) denotes the object denoted
                           by the object denoted by t." -- KIF