🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <58730@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:

   nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:

   }In article <66150@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:

   }   Does anyone really believe that anybody will invest in a scheme
   }   which requires that you raise capital, develop a product, bring the
   }   product to market, but after 5 years the product can be copied
   }   freely?

   }I'd just like to point out to Bruce that that is the current state of
   }affairs, and I don't even have to wait 5 years.  I can take J. Random
   }User's copy of 1-2-3, put it in my computer, and say "copy a: c:" and
   }viola, I have a copy of 1-2-3.  This hasn't stopped companies from
   }engaging in all the expensive behaviors Bruce mentioned above.

   }Oh, you mean that isn't legal?  Tell me, is that stopping anyone
   }besides a very few people?  I'm not saying that it's right, I'm
   }saying that it's done, and it doesn't stop companies from creating
   }huge investments.

   But this gets into real murky waters.  One can say essentially the same
   thing about shoplifting, or insider trading or any of a large number of
   hard-to-track criminal activities.

I'm not saying anything about solving the problem of illegal copying.  I'm
saying that companies are willing to write software *in spite* of illegal
copying.

   As for the huge investments, the question is "who pays"?  It pisses me
   off when I think that every time I *buy* a software package, some
   obscene percentage of its cost is the subsidization of the zillions of
   copies that are just stolen.   Now project out to a world where such
   copying is NOT illegal (and only practiced by those who are either
   knowingly unethical or at least have a very well-honed set of
   relativistic ethics) but rather generally permitted freely.  do you
   think such developments would still happen AT ALL?

I'm saying that people choose to buy software instead of stealing it
for more than moral or legal reasons.  Even if those reasons were taken
away by legislation abolishing copyright and patent restrictions, people
would continue to pay for software.

To answer your question, yes, such developments would still occur, because
people would still be willing to pay for software.

For example, consider that people are willing to write and publish after-market
manuals.  Their existance has nothing to do with restrictions on the legality
of software copying.

But, as Stallman says, there's no point arguing with you when I could better
spend the time creating freely copyable software.

--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])  Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
We won the cold war.  The Russians spent trillions defending their stuff,
then they found that they didn't have any stuff.  Will we avoid the same trap?