Re: A different approach

[sheldon@atlcom.net (Sheldon Simms)]

In article <5sj5mg$pqo@nntp02.primenet.com>, clay1@primenet.com (Clayburn
Juniel/Effective Software Solutions) wrote:

> 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.

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. There may be a very small number
of cases in which that happens, but not in the vast majority. Most of
the software being referred to are old games that have no direct
competitors currently available beside computer games in general. And
it is not at all obvious or certain that anyone inclined to buy Diablo
would refrain from doing so because there is an Odyssey or Wizardry or
Bard's Tale image available on Asimov. I never heard anyone say "Well
now that I downloaded the Castle Wolfenstein disk, I won't have to
shell out for Wolfenstein 3D/Doom/etc."

Even if you're not talking about games, it's hard to imagine someone
saying "Well, I would have had to spend $350 on Excel if I hadn't been
able to download that Visicalc disk..."

Lastly, your argument is also valid for buying software secondhand.
Suppose I would buy Excel for $350 if I couldn't download Visicalc
for free and, darn my luck, Asimov disappears just before I download
Visicalc. So I prepare to shell out for Excel, but wait! I get
Visicalc for $5 from someone on the internet, or find it at a garage
sale, thrift store, etc. Microsoft is deprived of the revenue they
otherwise would have received! Maybe reselling software should be
illegal too.

Basically the concept of "intellectual property" is fairly new, and
it's not really clear what the law "should be". The general idea is to
protect the right of a creator of an intellectual work to market his work
and receive recompense therefrom, and to prevent others from depriving
the creator of such recompense for the work. Once the creator is no
longer interested in pursuing such recompense, it seems reasonable to
permit free use of the work, as no one is depriving the creator of anything
by doing so. Now that description may not conform with the letter of
the law, as it exists now, but I think it certainly conforms with the
spirit of the law as applied in the judicial system of the US. Try to
get a DA to prosecute a case of Visicalc downloading if you disagree.
As for upholding strictly the letter of the law, don't complain unless
you never go even 1 MPH over the speed limit, never jaywalk (even if you're
alone on an empty street), Always come to a complete stop at a stop sign
(even when riding a bike or walking), etc.

-- 
W. Sheldon Simms III   |   2000 is *still* the 20th century
sheldon@atlcom.net     |