Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!gcm!dc
From: dc@gcm (Dave Caswell)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Piracy
Keywords: copy protection piracy
Message-ID: <474@white.gcm>
Date: 18 May 88 06:54:42 GMT
References: <9160@cisunx.UUCP> <1801@uhccux.UUCP> <807@netxcom.UUCP> <1641@looking.UUCP> <174@proxftl.UUCP>
Reply-To: dc@white.UUCP (Dave Caswell)
Organization: Greenwich Capital Markets, Greenwich, CT
Lines: 55

In article <174@proxftl.UUCP> rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes:
.> If software authors charged 200% more than what their software was worth, they
.> would not sell one single copy.  Not one.  OK, perhaps a few copies to
.> complete imbiciles, but that's about it.  Lotus has managed to sell a few
.> million copies.
.
.You are implying that Lotus's production costs are in excess of $150 dollars
.and I don't believe that.

I don't see how this relates to your next paragraph.  Lotus is worth countless
dollars to a company that it helps to reduce work and zero to someone who
lets it sit on a shelf unopened.  So what.  What relation is their between
production costs and worth?  Why isn't it the amount of money it would cost
you to redesign and build it yourself?  If you think it is overpriced write
it yourself; what possible rational is there for stealing it?  

Design a substitute, advertise it and sell it if you think it is so overpriced.
Please don't tell me it is OK to steal it.  It is amazing that in a community
where most people get paid for programming that people are trying to say
it is OK to steal programmer's work.  You can bet that does not happen in
most other professions.

.Actually, something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. You
.could have the greatest little program, and if no one will pay a cent for it
.it is worthless. Worth is relative to both the buyer and seller, it is not
.an intrinsic quality of the product.


.Actually you make a good point. Profits are good. I am all in favor of profits.
.I am not in favor of companies that treat their customers unfairly. I don't
.expect software companies to make prices so low that they run themselves out
.of business, but at the same time I do expect them to make a only a reasonable
.profit (400% is not reasonable). I don't believe that Lotus's production costs
.are $100 dollars per unit. They are so busy over-paying their executives that

Profits are in and of themselves reasonable.  In a capitalist company if
profits become too great than competitors come into the business 
undercutting costs and stealing market share.  An excellent example 
is Turbo Pascal about 3-5 years ago . Instead
of paying 300$ for a Pascal compiler you can now buy one for 50$ or so.
This did not come about because a bunch of rationalizing crooks stole the
300$ compilers.  It also did not happen because a few people complained about
how prices were too high.

.they end up screwing their customers. Software piracy is a direct cause of
.their pricing policies. (Of course there will always be software pirates. No
.matter what the cost.)

This last paragraph is the only thing you said that makes sense and you probably
didn't mean it.  Software piracy causes software to be higher priced than 
it would be if people were honest.
-- 
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets                      uunet!philabs!gcm!dc
If it could mean something, I wouldn't have posted about it! -- Brian Case