On Jul 24, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> 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."
>

'natural form'?
Software and markets have no 'natural form' they are social  
constructs period.
The non-human part of the world does not create nor exhibit such things.

What you are describing is a fantasy that you subscribe to. There is  
no artificial scarcity in software sales. It is impossible. Most  
vendors sell via download anyway. They're simply charging what the  
market will accept and pay. If sales slumped and customers blamed  
pricing, you bet they'd have a price drop. The only scarcity in this  
is the market for customers. There are a reasonable finite number of  
customers for any product. If you happen to produce video editing  
software, you charge what you can for it. You seem to think that all  
software is the same. It's not. Many types of software don't have or  
require much of a service sector to them. You simply offer an  
interface or features that users want and are willing to pay for.
If people are willing to pay for something, then you have demand.  
When you have demand, somebody WILL supply that demand. Drugs!  
Software! Massages! Counselling! Manicure! Live Music! etc. ad infitum