Re: OMG!

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

Im Artikel <3b04ab21.274819601@news1.on.sympatico.ca> schrieb "Jeff
Blakeney" <CUTjefbla@bconnex.net>:

> On Wed, 16 May 2001 13:02:02 +0200, "Sheldon Simms"
> <sheldon@semanticedge.com> wrote:
> 
>>Yes I did. I said it's better that the copyright holder get some benefit
>>from the work.
> 
> Okay, so you are agreeing with me then that buying a new or used copy is
> better than downloading a pirate copy.  That's good to hear.

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.

>>Because the copyright holder doesn't get anything when *I* buy it, and I
>>have no interest in helping to enrich people selling second hand copies.
> 
> The only way that the copyright holder will directly benefit from you
> purchasing a copy is if you purchase it directly from them. 

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.

> I have been saying that the copyright holder has
> benefited from those copies but has/will receive no benefit from people
> downloading pirated copies.

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.

> By the way, in most cases you wouldn't be enriching anyone selling a
> second hand copy.  They had to pay for that copy in the first place and
> the chances of you buying it from them for more than they paid for it
> originally is pretty slim.  The only way they could be enriched is if
> they made a profit and that means selling it for more than they paid for
> it.

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?

>>As for breaking the law, I feel exactly as sorry about that in this case
>>as I do when I walk across the empty street when when the sign says
>>don't walk.
> 
> Well then, don't be upset when people call you to task for breaking the
> law or when they look down on you for doing so or whatever. 

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.

> Also, please don't do like some
> people here do and try to convince people that it is perfectly legal or
> promote downloading of pirated materials without warning people that it
> is still illegal.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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