From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-07-25T04:09:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Editor

On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:21:45AM +0900, Alex Young wrote:
> John Joyce wrote:
> >On Jul 24, 2007, at 5:04 AM, Brad Phelan wrote:
> >>Chad Perrin wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:49:59PM +0900, Brad Phelan wrote:
> >>>>However it always stuns me when software geeks come with
> >>>>arguments as previously posted because we are meant to be
> >>>>abstract thinkers. However I keep hearing the same old argument
> >>>>along the lines of `if I can't kick it, it has no value and
> >>>>should be free.`
> >>>I don't recall anyone saying anything of the sort.  Maybe I'm
> >>>just not thinking abstractly enough to know where you got that.
> >>
> >>'governmentally enforced artificial scarcity model where software
> >>is treated as physical product units.'
> >>
> >>
> >>What does this mean other than that software has no inherent 
> >>monetary sale value other than that artificially imposed by
> >>government control?
> >>
> >Which is exactly the kind of half logic that would debunk all 
> >'governmentally enforced' rights, property or otherwise.
> I wouldn't call it "half logic".  If you accept that value is derived 
> from scarcity, and that bits can be copied arbitrarily easily (and are 
> therefore by definition non-scarce and have *no* intrinsic value), then 
> a government-enforced moratorium on copying bits under certain 
> circumstances is required to give those bits themselves scarcity and 
> therefore value.  Unless you have a different model for defining 
> intrinsic value, the logic is pretty solid...

Actually . . . software has value.  Something doesn't have to have
physical scarcity to have value.  In fact, one might say that software
*is a measure of value*, in that it is the symbolic representation of
work, hopefully with some kind of efficiencies built in that enhance the
value of that work.

The reason the software-as-units business model relies on artificial
scarcity is that it's trying to derive market value from a non-scarce
part of the chain of creation, distribution, and use.  Ultimately, in its
natural form, a software market would be a service industry rather than a
product manufacturing industry.

Of course, I think I may be violently agreeing with you, to some extent.
You're probably using "software" in this case to refer to "copies of
software", as a form of shorthand.  The copies themselves have no
intrinsic value (though the media on which they're copied have at least
some such value).

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity.
You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not
helping anyone."