Message-ID: <143@looking.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Apr-84 00:00:00 EST
Article-I.D.: looking.143
Posted: Thu Apr  5 00:00:00 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 02:21:00 EST
References: <2375@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont
Lines: 38

Many people on this net advocating piracy say things like

"It can be copied for $2, so it is worth $2" or
"If they broadcast HBO through my land then I can take it if I want!"

These are statements of what you CAN do, not what you should do.
We should all be aware that the value of software is not in the media,
it's in the message.  The same with all forms of valuable information.

You have to reward the people who spend the time in R&D.  Since their
information is their property (if you don't think so I would like to
see you in the not-to-distant future when a large portion of the population
spends its time producing nothing but information) and in a free market they
can charge what they like to recoop losses and make a profit.

And you can't just sell for a little bit more.  A programmer costs about
$100,000 a year when you include the office you had to build for him/her,
the computers you had to buy, the support staff you had to pay, the phone
bill and the salary.   Same with people in marketing, sales and support,
although their cost is not quite as high as a programmer's

If you only make a few bucks per program, a typical system would have a lot
of broke software companies, unless everybody wrote something with mass
market appeal.  About the only programs that can make a profit at low prices
through volume are games, and many game companies are using red pens anyway.

Just because you CAN take something doesn't mean you should.  If you leave
your door unlocked, I CAN come in and lift your TV set.  Nothing physical
stops me if I am not seen.  If we want a free market system for information
(and I do although you may not) you have got to let people make money of it.
Only this will encourage people to make the best.  Otherwise you get nothing
but mass market pap.  Consider network TV - it appeals to the lowest common
denominator and mostly sucks.  Newer technology allows pay-as-you-play TV
where quality is judged not on market surveys but on how much the individual
subscribers want to pay.  This results in superior TV.  But if people
aren't willing to set up some rules and obey them, we will get pure pap.
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304