This is my logic: did he hurt anyone by doing so? If no, then who cares. Complaining that they should either buy it or not use it at all, even when not losing profits with it is just saying "well, if I can't make profit off you, then you can't make it off me either!". If it's a moral issue with you, fine, that's your choice, but economically, it's a nonissue, it's simply a show of force to gain better law "protection". The same corporate logic that makes companies persecute people that put programes from 1985 online for download. Sure, they're not selling that program any more, they're not interested in doing so, but they'll be damned if they'll let someone use it for free! At least they had a semi valid legal reason for doing so [valid because if they did not do so, they couldn't sue later. Semi because they're not interested in making and profit off that program to begin with], it doesn't really apply here as letting anyone do it and squinting at some that do are two separate things.
If you want a specific clause to stick in a law, I cannot give you one. Laws are as definite as possible, but not absolute; that'd be worse than no laws at all. All laws are in the end subject to interpretation and that is how it should be. If someone brought a 12 year-old to court for pirating a $30 000US program for his personal use, demanding monetary compensation, they'd be laughed out of the court, and rightly so. Alas this leap of logic doesn't seem to stretch to those that measure lost profits...
...and I will be very grateful to anyone that can tell me how the heck they can tell how much money is lost through piracy. What, did they have a poll online I wasn't aware of? Or perhaps they count the yearly internet traffic and CDR sales and extrapolate from that? I find those statistics more suspect than OralB "9 in 10 dentists" commercials.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2002-07-06 04:10 pm (UTC)Complaining that they should either buy it or not use it at all, even when not losing profits with it is just saying "well, if I can't make profit off you, then you can't make it off me either!". If it's a moral issue with you, fine, that's your choice, but economically, it's a nonissue, it's simply a show of force to gain better law "protection".
The same corporate logic that makes companies persecute people that put programes from 1985 online for download. Sure, they're not selling that program any more, they're not interested in doing so, but they'll be damned if they'll let someone use it for free!
At least they had a semi valid legal reason for doing so [valid because if they did not do so, they couldn't sue later. Semi because they're not interested in making and profit off that program to begin with], it doesn't really apply here as letting anyone do it and squinting at some that do are two separate things.
If you want a specific clause to stick in a law, I cannot give you one. Laws are as definite as possible, but not absolute; that'd be worse than no laws at all. All laws are in the end subject to interpretation and that is how it should be.
If someone brought a 12 year-old to court for pirating a $30 000US program for his personal use, demanding monetary compensation, they'd be laughed out of the court, and rightly so. Alas this leap of logic doesn't seem to stretch to those that measure lost profits...
...and I will be very grateful to anyone that can tell me how the heck they can tell how much money is lost through piracy. What, did they have a poll online I wasn't aware of? Or perhaps they count the yearly internet traffic and CDR sales and extrapolate from that? I find those statistics more suspect than OralB "9 in 10 dentists" commercials.