> >Therein lies the crux of this debate: you can't copy beans--you must >provide MORE beans, whereas with software, folks say it just takes a >simple copy onto another CD and doesn't require (much) additional (or >equal to the first) effort. > >As for Charlie's comment about software rentals, yes....that's what some >are trying to do with Software On Demand or Software as a Service (SaaS). > >My 2 cents: I'm for getting paid and with that pay I many times make >some charitable donations regularly...but charity alone (with no >compensation) doesn't pay my bills. > Here's mine:
If you want to get paid, make more than one thing that's worth paying for. Software doesn't wear out and it doesn't run out. The fact that a vendor needs to keep getting paid is not the customer's problem. Customers only need one copy of a piece of software to do what they want to do, for as long as they want to do it. Forcing people to keep paying over and over for that piece of software is a distortion of economic common sense--and it's only done to benefit the seller, who is trying to escape the necessity of producing something new and different to sell. It does not benefit the buyer, who gains no further value after the first payment. In fact, it's not only a distortion, it is EXtortion: Pay me or I break your legs/business/computer. And in case you were about to bring up the subscription model for entertainment, such as TV: those vendors continuously stream new and different content. People who want to sell software on a subscription basis, for the most part, want us to keep paying for the same thing over and over--sometimes prettied up with new eye candy or useless "features" that nobody asked for and nobody uses. Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
