Re: A different approach

[Eric Jacobs <no@no.no>]

Clayburn Juniel/Effective Software Solutions wrote:
> 
> smentzer@pacbell.net
> Really, really said this:
> 
> >2 - Downloading software that still under copyright, but unable to
> purchase
> >from a legitmate source because of the following issues falls into my
> "gray
> >area", and you should lighten up about it.
> >
> >       a - The copyright holder no-longer exists, or is inactive.
> >       b - The software is no longer being legally distributed.
> >
> >These items fall into my "gray area".
> 
> No they don't.  In most cases if a software title is no longer availible
> though still copyrigthed there is a competing program maybe even on a
> different platform.  So if you steal the first program you are depriving
> profits for some second program.  And some times both programs may be
> produced by the same company.
> 
> Clay

That is entirely a gray area. I can understand calling a program "stolen" if
it is copied without the publisher being compensated. But saying one program
is stolen because a different program is copied is ridiculous.

Of course, this condition

> >       b - The software is no longer being legally distributed.

is silly in itself. If I decide that I like v1.0 of a program but v2.0 is the
only version that is being distributed, is it OK for me to copy it without
restriction?

The concept of "intellectual property" is itself a huge gray area. There are
many different shades of gray, that many people feel very strongly
about: but the whole idea needs to be worked out legally and morally, with a
very objective viewpoint. This simply hasn't been done, and it will
continue to create questions.

and wars, it seems...

-ej