Re: Another Modest Proposal: Pirating vs Archiving

[David Edwards <none@nowhere.gone>]

Jeffrey Robertson wrote:
> 
> In article <31F4F57C.6C4@nowhere.gone>,
> David Edwards  <none@nowhere.gone> wrote:
> >Nathan Mates wrote:
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >> > 1. The program is no longer commercially available on this
> >> >    platform.
>  (snip)
> 
> Uuuh, if I might be allowed to state what I meant by my rule,
> instead of being told what I meant, I'd have to agree with Nathan.

Let me say that I did not intend to put words in your mouth. When I read rule #1, "commercially 
available" to me meant that the software is no longer being actively produced. There will always 
be original copies of a given piece of software (whether it's in like new condition or not) for 
people to sell and make a profit on (if they can.)  You cannot order any more from the 
publisher, therefore they have walked away from that software. 

> 
> Someone is selling brand-new copies of the software commercially
> (ie, for profit).  Offering the software free on the 'net would
> be cutting into his sales... which isn't fair.

I would say that if he ordered them years ago from the publisher (or a distributor) then yes, 
that would not be fair. 

> 
> However, if after a year or so after Joe Kohn sells all his
> copies, and no one else starts selling them, *then* the program
> is truly "no longer commercially available".

If someone picks up some unopened software at a garage sale and decides to sell it, is that also 
"commercially available?" Where/when do you draw the line? You would have to confirm that NO ONE 
is selling ANY software anywhere.