On 28 Nov 2003 at 10:44, Henry Posner wrote:
> At 02:01 AM 11/28/2003 +0100, EOS-Digest wrote:
> >Your argument would be valid if Canon paid more to the actual author
> >of the manual
>
> That's between the author and Canon, isn't it and doesn't alter the
> nature of copyright. A little OT but there was an article on high
> school cheating recently which made me recall earlier articles about
> high school and college students plagarizing stuff they found on-line
> for homework and term papers. This may not be a perfect analogy, but
> if I don't want my kid to cheat by "borrowing" stuff from others maybe
> I should set a good example and not "borrow" stuff another person or
> company has copyrighted? -- -
Judging on 'damage', there is damage in the latter case, but not in
the case of copied Canon manuals.
It's supplemental/contributing to their core business, selling
camera's, and sustained value on the second hand market.
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
