Re: OMG!

[CUTjefbla@bconnex.net (Jeff Blakeney)]

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.  If you
really do believe that the copyright holder should benefit from their
work then you should agree with me that getting hold of a used copy
(either having it given to you or buying it) is the better way to go.

>Whether the copyright holder benefits directly or indirectly is
>irrelevant. When I buy a new copy of a program from a store, the
>copyright holder benefits, either directly or indirectly. When I buy
>a secondhand copy, the copyright holder doesn't benefit at all. Sure
>he or she had some direct or indirect benefit when the original purchaser
>bought the program first hand, but at the time I buy it second hand, the
>copyright holder doesn't benefit at all.
[quote from my earlier message snipped]
>Well I could argue that the copyright holder benefited when someone
>bought the copy that was cracked and/or copied, but instead I'll just
>say that by the time I am faced with the choice of downloading from an
>FTP site or buying a second hand copy, it doesn't matter. Whether the
>copyright holder ever benefited or not is immaterial. The copyright
>holder won't benefit when I acquire the software, regardless how I
>acquire it.

Let's try a picture this time:

          ------------------
          |Copyright holder|
          ------------------
           1/    2|     3\
           /      V       \
          /   ----------   \
         /    |sells to|    \
        /     |store   |     \
       /      ----------      \
      |          2|\3          |
      |           | \          V
      |           |  \     ---------- 4 ----------
      |           |   \___\|sells to|__\|uploads |
      |           |       /|a person|  /|to net  |
      |           |        ----------   ----------
      |           |            |            |
      V           V            V            V
 ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
 |you buy |   |you buy |   |you buy |   |you dl  |
 |direct  |   |at store|   |used    |   |off net |
 ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------

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.

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.  The copyright holder has still benefited from
that copy.

Path 4:  If an individual uploads it to the net, then that individual
still has the copy they bought and you are downloading a copy that the
copyright holder has never benefited from.  This is because path 4
starts at the individual level rather than the copyright holder level
and the copyright holder.  The individual is usurping the right of the
copyright holder to determine how many copies exist by making a copy
available for one or more others to use.

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.

If the copyright holder sells a copy directly to one person and sells
two copies to a store, he has been paid for three copies.  If you buy
directly from the copyright holder, buy one of the copies from the
store or you buy a used copy from someone who got their copy from
either the store or directly from the copyright holder, there are
still only three copies in existence that the copyright holder has
been paid for.

If someone uploads a copy of the copy they bought to the net and one
person downloads it, then there are now fours copies in existence, one
of which has not been paid for.  This would translate into a loss of
25% to the copyright holder.

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?

>If they no longer want the software, then the software has no value for
>them.If I pay them for the software then they have traded something that,
>for them, had no value for money, which has value. Therefore they have
>been enriched. If the prospective seller thought they would be losing out
>on the deal, then why are they selling in the first place?

If the people who have an original feel that the software has no
value, they will either throw it away or give it away.  If they feel
that it is worth a few dollars, they will charge a few dollars.
Again, they will not be monetarily "enriched" until such time as you
pay them more than they originally paid for the program.  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.

One possible reason for selling a piece of used software is because
you will no longer be using it (ie. you beat the game).  Some people
may give away their used copies, others might charge some money for it
because they want to recoup some of the cost of their original
purchase and/or to cover the expense of selling it.

>I'm not upset. I simply reject your position. There is nothing wrong with
>downloading abandoned software from asimov. That is no statement of
>law, that is a standard of acceptable behavior.

That certainly is no statement of law.  The law clearly states that
there is something wrong with downloading software from sites like
asimov.  Most of the programs there are still protected under
copyright law so it is illegal for you to make a copy by downloading
it.

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?

>It is not at all clear that it is illegal. It might well be illegal, but
>then again it might not be. Copyright law protects the rights of
>copyright holders, but the rights are not absolute and the protection
>is not infinite.

Yes, it is completely clear that it is illegal and no, copyrights do
not last forever.  They have a finite time limit for copyright
protection but that certainly doesn't expire when users decide it
should or when companies stop making new copies available.  This may
not be the best system and you may not like it but it is what is in
place today.

>Whether or not it is actually illegal to download is a matter that would
>have to be decided by trial.

No, a trial is not necessary to determine whether something is illegal
or not.  A trial is a system used to allow someone accused of breaking
a law to defend themselves and to try to prove that they didn't.  If
it is proven that they did break that law then the trial is also used
to determine the penalty for breaking that law.

To determine whether something is illegal or not you simply need to
read the laws.  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.  Whether you get caught
and go to trial for that offense is irrelevant to whether you did
something that the law says you aren't supposed to do.

>No such decision has been made, nor will
>such a decision ever be made, because the software we're talking about
>is abandoned. The copyright holders show no interest in either making the
>software available, or preventing it from being distributed via FTP.

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

>It would be helpful to find out what your main objection is to the asimov
>archive (as a representative of the free availabilty of old software in
>general). Is the problem simply that "it's against the law"? Suppose a
>new law was passed tomorrow explicitly making the free copying of
>software legal, as long as the software is otherwise non-available and
>the computer for which the software was written has not been manufactured
>for at least 5 years. Would your objections then cease?

If the laws change tomorrow and it becomes legal for those titles on
asimov to be distributed that way then yes, I would stop objecting.

>If so, then I suggest that your position is not only wrong, it is
>actually immoral. That sounds hard, perhaps, but it seems clear to
>me that anyone who equates law with morality, or assumes that
>right and wrong can be distinguished by reading the U.S. Code (or
>any other body of law) has a serious problem. Such an attitude leads
>straight to oppression and the tolerance of governmental atrocity.

I try VERY hard to keep legality and morality separate.  My main focus
is on the legal issues because there is only a single law for a large
number of people therefore making it an objective subject.  Morals,
because they are different from person to person, are far too
subjective to bother arguing about.

>If "the law" isn't your reason for being opposed to Asimov, then what
>is the reason?

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.

For some reason, there are a lot of people who are comfortable with
breaking the law and spend a lot of time justifying their illegal
activities but seem to have a big problem with simply admitting that
they are breaking the law and refuse to warn people when they point
them to asimov that the program they are pointing them too is being
illegally distributed.  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.

Anyways, you have drifted off of the topic of our original
conversation about whether getting a used copy of a program is better
than downloading a pirated copy is better or not.  If you don't
understand my point after this message then I'll stop trying to make
it clearer as I don't see how I could do it.

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.  Any justifications
you have will probably have already been brought up and all the
pointers to the laws that prove that it is illegal are all there so
there is no need for us to go through all that again.

My apologies to everyone for the length of this post and for the
length of this particular thread.  I hadn't intended for this to go on
this long.

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