Re: OMG!

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

Im Artikel <3afdb3d1.104120248@news1.on.sympatico.ca> schrieb "Jeff
Blakeney" <CUTjefbla@bconnex.net>:

> On Thu, 10 May 2001 12:58:33 +0200, "Sheldon Simms"
> <sheldon@interprice.com> wrote:
> 
>>Im Artikel <3af9a7de.94735064@news1.on.sympatico.ca> schrieb "Jeff
>>Blakeney" <CUTjefbla@bconnex.net>:
>>> In the first case I
>>> listed above, the copyright holder has received some benefit from that
>>> copy.  In the second case, the copyright holder gets no benefit at
>>> all. In other words, the copyright holder was paid for the first one,
>>> but wasn't paid for the second one.  The second one has been stolen. 
>>> Now which do you think is better?
>>
>>It's better that the copyright holder get some benefit from the work, of
>>course, but in neither of the two situations above does the copyright
>>holder receive any benefit when *I* acquire the software.
> 
> Yes, you are right but did you read what I wrote?  In the first case the
> copyright holder has been paid for that copy, in second case they
> HAVEN'T been paid.  You never answered the question of which is better.

Yes I did. I said it's better that the copyright holder get some benefit
from the work.

>>In fact, my
>>acquisition of the software in both of the above two cases not only does
>>not benefit the copyright holder, it doesn't even contribute to the
>>copyright holder's financial interest in general, which it would if I
>>bought a new copy from a store.
> 
> That is what I said earlier and that is why I was wondering why you were
> so much against buying a used copy because it is almost exactly the same
> thing as buying from a store.  Neither case benefits the copyright
> holder anymore but at least they have been paid for that copy and know
> that it is out there.  Downloading and using a pirated copy has never
> and will never compensate the copyright holder and the copyright holder
> will most likely have no idea that you are even interested in getting a
> legal copy.

Seems like you are the one who's not reading. I am arguing that there
*is* a difference between buying a first-hand copy and buying a
second-hand copy. Read the above from me again.

>>We're talking about a situation where I, the acquirer, would gladly pay
>>the copyright holder a reasonable price to use the software, but that is
>>impossible, because the copyright holder has no interest in receiving
>>payment. In this case, I will download the software rather than pay some
>>third party for a second hand copy.
> 
> If you would gladly pay the copyright holder, why don't you buy a copy
> that the copyright holder has been paid for rather than breaking the law
> and downloading a copy that HASN'T been paid for?

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.

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.