🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gunzlerC...@netcom.com>,
Mitch Gunzler <gun...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <2gevvi$h...@explorer.clark.net> th...@clark.net (Taylor Hutt) writes:
>>With logic like that, everyone person on the planet would be giving 
>>someone else a percentage of something.  That is silly logic.  You cannot 
>>expect every entrepreneur to pay money simply because the originator 'may 
>>not get their fair share'.
>
>Well, yes, you can.  If "originator" means "owner", they have a perfect
>right to control access to their product, and charge you if you want to
>be a licensed distributor.  That's why it's called *copy*right, they
>control the right to copy it!

I believe that the owner of the copyright, under ths shareware principal, 
allows you to copy the disk freely, as long as you don't modify it in 
anyway.  Id would be on shaky ground if they tried to get money from 
these people, because these distributors are doing exactly what Id says 
you can do.  The little point of contention is the charge for the disk.  
The distributor can easily circumvent this with a big warning that they 
are not selling the game, merely copying it.  It becomes the 
responsibility of the 'copyee' to pay the shareware fee.  Further, 
consider the fact that they 1) supply the disk (I can find samples of >$1 
for 1.44Mb diskettes -- overpriced, sure -- but precisely what would be 
used in court), 2) the time for the copy process and 3) the means to 
further propogate the software.


>>You are correct in stating that people will 'feel they have paid the
>>price of the game already', and probably not pay for the shareware, but
>>that does NOT entitle the game's author to a percentage. 
>
>No, it entitles them to *stop* you from doing so.

Not if they tell the rest of the people that they can copy it.  What is 
good for one person must be good for all.  You cannot be selective here.