Re: OMG!

[CUTjefbla@bconnex.net (Jeff Blakeney)]

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.

>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.

>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?

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