Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:13795 comp.sys.misc:1074 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11210 comp.sys.mac:11818 comp.sys.atari.st:7215
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!buddy.Berkeley.EDU!c60b-at
From: c60b-at@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (John Kawakami -0^0-)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Software (and other kinds of) copying
Message-ID: <444@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>
Date: 29 Jan 88 21:19:00 GMT
References: <21754@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <229@wright.EDU> <886@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> <160@octopus.UUCP> <3125@phri.UUCP>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu
Reply-To: c60b-at@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (John Kawakami -0^0-)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 14

In article <3125@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>	Perhaps the analogy between the stamps and making copies of
>software is a bit strained, but the point is clear; the value of something
>I own can decrease simply because it becomes more common and easy to get,
>without anything actually happening to my copy or copies. 

Aha!  But suppose there were only 3 or four copies of X C-compiler out.
It would have very little value.  This is because software is not archival.
With any luck, it gets better and better, and eventually, old packages
will become obsolete, replaced by better programs.  If a game is pirated,
it's intrinsic value does not go down.  BUT its market value plummets,
endagering the well being of the publisher/writers.
Nuff said...

John Kawakami  (c60b-at@buddy.Berkeley.edu)