Eric has this exactly right - it's simply an estimation of risk on the part
of the consumer, and a cold estimation of cost of protecting IP for the
producer, simply calculated on potential future income from that work vs
legal costs. For most software, this calculation comes out negative - it's
not worth it. For the HWR engine and other parts of the NOS, Apple has
obviously calculated that it makes sense to protect/retain it.
In many cases of course it costs the producer nothing to send an e-mail that
says "my lawyers will get in touch with you unless you remove this..." and
most consumers comply, so the equation is skewed in favor of the producer
for risk-averse consumers. If you talk to judges or lawyers, you get an
interesting take on what is 'right' and 'wrong' and what the law's role in
all of this is. It's not as clear cut as we think.
When you have an aggressive legal image, a la Apple or Microsoft, it gives
you certain benefits, moving the level of compliance in your favor.
Paul F.
> And there's the gamble, isn't it? Copyright violation only exists when
> the
> copyright holder takes you to court about it. So if one feels the odds
> are
> that the holder no longer exists, or is in the business, then this becomes
> a
> reasonable gamble. But the stakes are potentially high if one misjudges
> and
> loses the 'bet'. So, I think we're all just trying to hedge our 'bet'
> here.
> (Besides all of us wanting to do the right thing.)
>
> - Eric.
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:20 EDT