robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (04/04/84)
References: Several writers believe that stealing software is different from stealing cars, becuase of the thief's ability to make a copy. Let's compare the end results: (1) In the case of software -- You have a diskette. We make an unauthorized copy for me. We now both have a diskette. Now either: - I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT OTHERWISE: The vendor has lost the value of one sale (Another way to say this: the vendor has given me a free copy); or: - I WOULD NEVER HAVE BOUGHT THE SOFTWARE; I am now using somethng that does not belong to me. (2) In the case of the car -- I steal your car. Your insurance company reimburses you for its value and you replace it. Now either: - I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT A CAR OTHERWISE: Your Insurance company has treated me to a free car. - I WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT A CAR OTHERWISE: Your insurance company has treated me to a free car, and the vendor has GAINED a sale. Conclusions: The cases are different. All possibilities are odious. I think the software cases are worse, read on: Stealing a car does NOT cost vendor sales; the vendor may benefit. Perhaps this explains why software companies are more concerned with piracy than automobile manufacturers. The insurance company ALWAYS loses, but perhaps insurance companies are not concerned about this because they come out ahead through well-planned insurance rates. In the case of software theft, there is no insurance company involved. The vendor may lose. In all the examples above, the vendor is the ONLY unindemnified party. My claim that "I would not have bought the software" is hard to verify; maybe the vendor lost in this case too. - Toby Robison allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison princeton!eosp1!robison