Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (
More info?)
"Terence Roache" <tjmr@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:q3Zhc.90$by5.69@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > Unless of course they also have an ounce of respect for copyright laws.
> >
>
> Why 'of course'.
>
> Copyright is only a temporary monopoly - granted to the creator of a work
> for a limited time by governments, in order for that person to
> unrestrictidly maximise whatever gain can be generated during that period.
>
> Essentially - it is an artificial bargain madated by law - between the
> creator and the consumer, where each party derive a certain advantage. The
> creators benefits by being rewarded for their creations, and the consumer
> benefits by the encouragement this exercise of monopoly gives to the
creator
> to generate more work. A virtious circle of production and consumption is
> thereby created and maintained.
>
> Fine in theory - however, a bargain is only fair if both sides stick to
the
> rules. The monopolist has a remedy in law for recovering damages if the
> consumer, or another producer breaches his monopoly. Yet the consumer has
no
> remedy for the copyright monopolist's breach of faith.
>
> This breach occurs when the monopolist accepts the 'unrestricted
> maximisation of gain' but does not follow through with the 'further works'
> that taking this profit is supposed to promote and encourage'.
>
> If you own the copyright of a creation, or body of work, and do not, are
> not, or are unwilling to make good use of that monopoly - then there is no
> point in having it. Use it or lose it.
>
> That is the consumers remedy. Modern practice says that if you 'abandon'
> your monopoly, then you have no 'right' - and the work in queston can be
> copied. Legaility is not the same as morality - that is why copyright
> infringement is a civil, not a criminal offence (although some would like
it
> to be so).
>
> >
> > In other words, there may be people who don't have the old Infocom
> > adventures and don't want to acquire them unless they can do so legally.
> >
>
> Yes, you can argue the technicalities of the law till the cows come home,
> but - in the marketplace - it is the consumer who is king - not the
> monopolist. If the copyright holder of Infocom games could see any profit
in
> re-releasing them - you would be able to purchase them today (that is the
> whole point of having a copyright in the first place).
>
> Obviously then, there is no money to be made from any temporary monopoly
> that copyright has bestowed to the current holder of the rights to these
> games - so downloading them for your own personal (or archicval) use is
> unlikely to be depriving anybody of their legally sanctioned right to
profit
> from them.
>
> Yes, I too respect the intention of the Copyright Act's, but I don't chose
> to be a slave to the idea that the benefits should flow in one direction
> only. Any work in publication should be purchased - no doubt about it. But
> I'm not waiting until hell freezes over, or they are released into the
> public domain (whichever comes first) to acquire them - 'legally' or not.
>
>
i'm a supporter of copyright to a point. and not in this case. activision or
whoever hold copyright, ... they various forms of the infocom packages are
not readily available, in fact i can't find anywhere online selling them at
the moment, ... activision have no intention it seems of re-releasing the
games. so the only way to get them if you don't have them already is to
either download them if you can find them, copy someone elses CD, buy them
off ebay and the like. now what would you expect people to do? ... if
activision release them, i'd buy them like a shot, but they won't so to hell
with their copyright, they're shooting themselves through the head on this
one! now i'm off to search ebay for some games, think they were released by
a company called infocom is it? a few years back!! LOL
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram