From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 14:12:25 +0800
To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
Subject: Re: the best justice money can buy --Lessig (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <aR7Fke1w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.980205101505.1342A-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
> 
> > 
> > Forwarded message:
> > 
> > > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:23:58 -0800 (PST)
> > > From: mark@unicorn.com
> > > Subject: Re: the best justice money can buy --Lessig
> > 
> > > Of course there's a free-market remedy for Microsoft; eliminate copyright. 
> > > anyone can copy Microsoft software for free, it would be forced to compete
> > > on real benefits rather than installed base.
> > 
> > If there were no copyright nobody would have any reason to market software
> > or much else for that matter. I would predict that much of the technology

[SNIP]

> 
> Software development seems to be thriving in countries that aren't very keen
> on enforcing copyright laws - do you care to explain why?

Would you care to explain where? 

There's a big difference between a "flourishing" market for custom,
in-house-only software (especially in a language that is not high on the
list for US developers), and a commercial software market consisting of
widely distributed applications. The in-house stuff doesn't need copyright
protection; it's never allowed out, and even if it were, what are the odds
it could be used by others without access to source code?  Custom software
is more a matter of selling a service than a "product", and it's a lot
harder to "bootleg" services. 

What software products can you come up with that have the same level of 
market penetration as those engineered in the US or Canada? How many of 
those are from nations that do not honor copyright?


> > 
> > Free markets monopolize.
> Hmm... There's no copyright on perfumes.  There are market leaders in perfumes,
> but no monopoly; hardly even an olygopoly.
> 

That's because the primary product is the image built by advertising, not 
the scent which is often fairly accurately duplicated (not that I'd know 
- my favorite scent is hallertau).

One of my professors defined advertising as "creating demand for that 
which is inherently worthless."