Re: OMG!

[CUTjefbla@bconnex.net (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Mon, 07 May 2001 20:45:30 GMT, "Christopher D. Heer"
<chris-heer.nospam@home.com.nospam> wrote:

>That analogy is flawed quite seriously.

Not at all.

>A store uses the money to purchase replacement goods and/or to recoup the
>costs of the original purchase.  Generally speaking a store will then order
>more goods, which does affect the copyright holder.

Exactly.  Say a store purchases 10 copies of a piece of software.  The
copyright holder will be compensated for those purchases at or near
that time.  Each time the store sells one of the pieces of software it
purchased, your money goes straight into the bank account of the store
(to recoup the purchase cost and other expenses involved with selling
products) and none goes back to the copyright holder because they have
already been compensated for those copies.

It doesn't matter how long it takes the store to sell those pieces of
software, the copyright holder will see no more money for those
copies.

The same thing applies to other types of products as well.

>Buying a used copy of software that hasn't been sold commercially for a
>decade does not, directly or indirectly, help the copyright holder in any
>way.

This is a point I meant to address but neglected to in my original
post.  Buying a used piece of software is no different from buying a
piece of software from a store regardless of how long the
store/individual has been trying to sell/has owned their copy.  The
copyright holder has been compensated for that piece of software so
the fact that the copyright holder isn't being compensated again
doesn't matter.

Copyright law says that only the copyright holder has the right to
determine how their work is distributed and how many copies exist.  As
long as the copyright holder keeps their copyright, the value of the
originals that stores and individuals have will be protected.  This is
why I keep mentioning the value of used copies as copyright law
doesn't just protect the copyright holder.

>I'm not defending the downloading.  I'm just making a point.

The argument that not buying a used copy of a piece of software
because the copyright holder doesn't get any benefit is flawed.  Say a
title sold 1,000 copies.  The copyright holder has been compensated
for all those copies.  When people start illegally distributing that
title, the number of copies is increased and the copyright holder gets
no benefit from those illegal copies either.  However, there could be
10,000 copies out there and in use but the copyright holder has only
been compensated for 1,000 of them.  9,000 of them have, in effect,
been stolen from the copyright holder.

Now you tell me, is it better to buy a legal copy on the used market
where the copyright holder doesn't get any benefit beyond what he got
for that copy initially or is it better to download an illegal copy
from the internet where the copyright holder has gotten no benefit at
all?

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