Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!gatech!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy
From: coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc
Subject: Re: Copyrights and wrongs...
Message-ID: <1682@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 18 Feb 88 18:54:58 GMT
References: <6999@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 55
Summary: are we changing any minds yet?



Mike,

In Message-ID: <6999@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> you write:

>It may be a nit, but it points out your using a false statement to try
>and support your points. For instance, you just assumed that I damage
>the value of some X of yours by making endless copies. Except for the
>loss of copyright, how does making endless copies of something damage
>it's value? Software still has the same functionality no matter how
>many copies of it exists. A painting is no less beautiful for there
>being three copies instead of one. A house keeps the weather out and
>possessions in no matter how many people own one just like it.

I think the definition of "value" you are working with here is too
narrow.  Making endless copies of some software does not change its
functionality.  In fact it may enhance it by creating a larger user
base out of which free enhancements and support may appear.  But as
a vendor selling a product in our capitalist society the value of a
software product depends only on how much people are willing to pay
for it.  In this sense distributing free copies of the product most
definitely damages the value of that product.  

Later in the same message you write:

>But I'm not trying to make it worse - I'm trying to make it _better_!
>For almost everybody involved. The only people who would really loose
>would be that minority of programmers making a living writing software
>specifically for resale.

What about those of us that benefit from using software that was
specifically written for resale?  Do you honestly think that the
commercial software that is available now would have been developed
had there been no chance of financial return?  Example:  I bought a
copy of Aztec C form Manx.  I like the product, use it regularly,
and feel that I got my money's worth.  Now for the big question:
Would Jim Goodnow have developed Aztec C to the point it is now
without the chance of financial return.  I don't think so.  Even if
he wanted to would he be able to do so?  He produces retail software
for a living and works full time doing so.  If he had to do other
work he wouldn't be able to devote as much time to his compiler and
we would all be worse off.

>The handbrake penetrates your thigh.			Mike Meyer
>A tear of petrol is in your eye.			mwm@berkeley.edu
>Quick, let's make love before we die.			ucbvax!mwm
>On warm leatherette.					mwm@ucbjade.BITNET

Stephen Coy
uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy

Disclaimer:  I don't know Jim, I have never talked with him.  My
comments about him are strictly best guess.  Maybe if he reads this
he can post a comment about how he sees the situation.