<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Totally agree with the principal Tim, as a
recording artist myself I have been the "victim" of copyright theft on countless
occassions, my point (and it was a bit devils advocate) is that Mr Henry is
concerned enough that his work is being "stolen" yet seems (from what I can
gather from the various comments so far) unwilling to make it available legally.
To me this seems like crying over spilt milk, if I were in the same situation
I'd take action or shut up. But there's no way I'd say "well I'm not going to
release any more" that seems like cutting one's nose off to spite the
face.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now, lots of my work has found its way onto file
sharing networks despite it being readily available to buy, but still it is
pirated (as is almost everything nowadays), it does not bother me too much since
those that download it probably would not have bought it anyway, thats not to
say it is right but its just by-product of the freedom of information, the other
way to look at it is that it allows a work to reach a far wider audience than
the "old days".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Don't think I am condoning copyright theft though,
it is wrong but it still happens, its upto the owner of the copyright to deal
with it (or not). I am in no way judging Mr Henry, it is after all, his choice,
I was just putting my way of dealing with the situation. I just can't see the
argument by the author for loss of revenue for something that is not legally
available.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As a side note I'd gladly buy the book
<legally> but would not buy a copy, also I was interested in building
Thomas Henry's "Super Controller" but gave up since it is no longer available so
thats 2 lost sales right there.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FF</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=tim.parkhurst@gmail.com href="mailto:tim.parkhurst@gmail.com">Tim
Parkhurst</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=fiercefish@btinternet.com
href="mailto:fiercefish@btinternet.com">Fiercefish</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl
href="mailto:synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl">synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:38
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [sdiy] OTA book on
eBay</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 10/12/05, <B
class=gmail_sendername>Fiercefish</B> <<A
href="mailto:fiercefish@btinternet.com">fiercefish@btinternet.com</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I
find this whole issue pretty idiotic, guy writes book, guy sells book,
guy<BR>stops selling book, other guys still want book, copy guy copies book,
copy <BR>guy sells book to other guys, first guy admits that copy guy is
not<BR>authorised to sell book, guy still does not sell book, guy moans that
copy<BR>guy will stop him from writing and selling future books, eventually
copy guy <BR>gets busted/bored and no longer sells book, first guy still
will not sell<BR>book, other guys still want book, book gone, no more books,
guy won't sell<BR>book, other guys still want book, ad infinitum.<BR><BR>Its
undoubtedley illegal and morally wrong to copy someone else's work, this
<BR>is clear. But the author (so it seems) is not interested in the book
(and<BR>presumably profits from it) so legal and moral issues aside who is
in the<BR>wrong? Sure the copy guy is doing it for profit, but he has
noticed a gap in <BR>the market and applied the basic business model of
supply and demand, ok so<BR>he should have got permission, but so should
everyone who ever recorded a<BR>song off the radio etc.<BR><BR>Many would
gladly buy the book legally if it were available and not even <BR>entertain
buying an unauthorised copy, yet the author neither makes the
book<BR>available for sale from a third party, or sells it himself or even
puts it<BR>in the public domain - all of which would take the market away
from the copy <BR>guy. WTF, seems kind of a spoilt brat attitude to me,
because even if there<BR>is a reason why the author can't undertake the
sales himself surely he could<BR>licence it to some third party,
no?<BR><BR>Maybe I am missing something, I would be interested in hearing
other <BR>opinions.<BR><BR>FF</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The number of people who want the book, or what they're willing to
pay, or even what they think of the author has NOTHING to do with it. THE BOOK
IS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. IT IS SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY. It doesn't matter
whether the author is being a 'brat,' selling unauthorized copies is just like
someone walking into your house and walking out with your TV. If the thief
said "well, he wasn't watching it. In fact, he hasn't even turned it on for a
month and it's a really nice TV," that doesn't change the fact that it's your
TV and you can do with it whatever the hell you want. Sorry, but
your argument does NOT hold water. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The material in the Thomas Henry books belongs to Thomas Henry and he can
give copies away on the corner, or never ever print another copy 'til the end
of time. The point remains: It is Mr. Henry's decision! Just because there is
a lot of demand for the material, that does not make it okay for someone
else to copy it and sell it. It also DOES NOT MATTER whether Thomas Henry (or
any other author) makes a living selling the book, or if he just makes a few
bucks here and there from it. THE MATERIAL IN THE BOOK BELONGS TO THE AUTHOR.
The laws of supply and demand DO NOT justify stealing. A lot of people want
big screen TVs, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to steal them from a
store and sell them on eBay. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm not trying to be too heavy handed here, but I'm just trying to show
you that copyrighted material belongs to the author, and only the author can
make decisions regarding distribution and sale of that material. The same
rules apply whether it's a song, a poem, a photo or a book. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tim (when did I become the copyright police, and why do I have to
keep explaining that stealing is wrong) Servo</DIV>
<DIV>-- </DIV>
<DIV>"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
</DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG
Anti-Virus.<BR>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/130 - Release
Date: 12/10/2005<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>