unethics

[Mike Arman]

At 08:15 AM 4/28/2004 -0700, you wrote:

>Mike,
>
>Your analysis is mostly correct, but overly complex.  Very simply, 
>copyright is exactly what it says: the original author or owner of the 
>copyright holds the copy rights.  That includes the right to make as many 
>copies, or as few copies as he or she chooses, or to sell or not sell 
>copys.  Very simply, when some one else makes a copy, without the owner's 
>permission, copyright infringement has occurred.  Damages are another 
>subject, but if the FA sells for $500 (I don't know) then the damages are 
>$500.  It's not a defense to copyright infringement that "X wouldn't 
>provide a copy, so I copied it."


Hi Greg! Nice to hear from you.

You're absolutely correct - the act of copying is the infringement.

But to make it stick in court, the copyright owner needs to show damages as 
well - and in this case, it might be pretty tough to do so. (Not that this 
makes the infringement OK, but the entire purpose of copyright is to insure 
the creator of the work gets the benefits derived from it.)

Audi is missing a *wonderful* marketing opportunity here - people who want 
the FA want it because they need to buy Audi parts, and they plan to buy 
Audi parts, and frequently lots of them. Selling the FA would deliver tens 
of thousands of money-waving committed enthusiasts right to Audi's parts 
department and to their marketing department, by name, address, phone, 
e-mail and the serial number of the car or cars they own. It would change 
the "us-versus-them" attitude to one of "community" - even Harley Davidson 
realized that with the HOG (Harley Owners Group) program. It would keep 
thousands of prospects in the pipeline ALL THE TIME - and we will PAY to be 
there!

The most amazing thing about this whole deal is it would cost them NOTHING 
to implement this - they currently derive NO benefits from keeping the FA 
unavailable, and in fact it would make their parts situation easier because 
most of the dealer parts monkeys don't know a URQ from a Yugo. Personally, 
I would *LOVE* to walk in with a printed list of parts - "I need these" - 
and not have to explain that Yes, this car is an Audi, yes, it has eight 
cylinders, yes, you still have parts for it, yes, it is a type 44 chassis 
and so on.

I can hear the judge now - "This guy's actions cost you nothing, did you no 
harm, and increased your parts sales revenue? And you want us to put him in 
jail?"




>As to the rest, it was, shall we say "funny" to "hear" a co-infringer 
>describe the person he had paid to infringe another's copyright, as 
>unethical.  I thought to myself: "Officer, I paid this guy to steal a car; 
>he didn't deliver, so I want him arrested"   When a person's copyrighted 
>work is copied without their permission, their intellectual property has 
>been stolen, plain and simple.


While my wife was a Public Defender, she had a regular parade of people who 
got burned on drug deals and wanted the cops to go arrest the "dishonest" 
dealer. None of them could ever quite figure out why it was THEM who was 
going to jail . . . One time I suggested that she tell them "Well, next 
time, just write the guy a bad check." and she told me not to give them any 
bright ideas.


Best,

Mike



>Back to our regularly scheduled programming . . . .
>
>Greg J
>BIRA.ORG