Author: Albert Silver
Date: 18:25:35 12/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2005 at 21:18:49, Uri Blass wrote:
>On December 09, 2005 at 21:03:59, Ed Murak wrote:
>
>>On December 09, 2005 at 20:59:11, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On December 09, 2005 at 20:49:26, Ed Murak wrote:
>>
>>>>To divorce author rights from other property rights is infeasible for legal and
>>>>also other logical reasons.
>>>
>>>No
>>>
>>>It is clearly logical
>>>
>>>The difference is the following difference:
>>>one car more for one person is one car less for another person.
>>>one program more for one person is not one program less for another person.
>>
>>
>>Oh, yes it is.
>>
>>It is _more than one_ future program less for a _lot_ of people.
>>
>>For certain.
>
>If I understand correctly you mean that there is going to be less future
>programs.
>You may be correct and may be not correct but it is a speculation and not
>something certain.
>
>
>>
>>
>>Also:
>>one car more for one person is one dollar more for some person.
>>one unpaid-for program more for one person may well be one dollar less for its
>>deserving author.
>
>And it also may be more dollars for him.
>
>The one who did not pay for it may tell other people about the program and part
>of them may pay for it and if he does not get it he may not tell about it to
>nobody and nobody is going to know about it.
>
>What is better for the author?
>
>1)selling 100 copies when nobody got illegal copy and only 1000 know about it?
>2)selling 1000 copies when 999000 got it illegally?
>
>Uri
Do you honestly believe that more people decided to go out and pay for Hiarcs
and co. because they downloaded it illegally on the Internet and decided they
wanted to thank the author? Are you serious?
Albert
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.